THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
OHHERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  SAN  DIECT 
fcA  JOLLA,  CALIFORNIA          (  f 


THE  SPIRIT  OP 
DEMOCRACY 

BY 
LYMAN  ABBOTT 


HOUGHTON  MIFFLIN  COMPANY 

<3tbe  Jtttttrjrtbe  pre^  Cambridge 
1910 


COPYRIGHT,  1910,  BY  LYMAN  ABBOTT 
ALL  RIGHTS  RESERVED 

Published  November  iqzo 


CONTENTS 

I.  THE  BIRTH  OF  DEMOCRACY 1 

II.  THE  TENDENCY  OF  DEMOCRACY       ...  14 

III.  THE  PAGAN  IDEAL  OF  THE  FAMILY    ...  28 

IV.  THE  HEBREW  IDEAL  OF  THE  FAMILY      .       .  44 
V.  THE  EVOLUTION  OF  EDUCATION  ....  69 

VI.  THE  HOME,  THE  CHURCH,  THE  SCHOOL  .        .  71 

VII.  PRESENT  CONDITIONS  IN  INDUSTRY     ...  93 

VIII.  POLITICAL  SOCIALISM        .....  109 

IX.  INDUSTRIAL  DEMOCRACY       .....  132 

X.  THE  ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  GOVERNMENT   .  156 

XI.  WHO  SHOULD  GOVERN? 177 

XII.  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY  IN  RELIGION  198 


THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

CHAPTER  I 

THE   BIRTH   OF   DEMOCRACY 

EVERY  age  is  a  transition  age.  But  in  some  eras 
the  transition  is  more  rapid  and  more  noticeable 
than  in  others.  As  sometimes  in  a  year  the  girl 
develops  into  womanhood,  as  sometimes  in  a 
week  the  skeleton  plant  bursts  into  leafage  and 
perhaps  into  bloom,  so  a  nation,  which  has  been 
growing  silently,  suddenly  puts  forth  the  evi- 
dence of  its  growth,  and  both  surprises  and  per- 
plexes itself  by  the  transformation.  Such  is  the 
phenomenon  now  taking  place  in  America.  It  is 
as  though  a  new-created  world  were  springing  up, 
and  we  were  taking  part  in  the  process  of  crea- 
tion. Nothing  is  as  it  has  been.  Science,  litera- 
ture, education,  art,  politics,  religion,  all  are 
being  new-born.  There  is  a  new  astronomy, 
a  new  biology,  a  new  chemistry  ;  there  are  new 
methods  of  architecture,  lighting,  locomotion, 
manufacturing;  new  types  of  fiction,  drama, 
poetry,  philosophy;  new  methods  of  teaching 
and  an  immense  increase  in  the  number  of  sub- 


2  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

jects  taught ;  a  new  alignment  of  political  parties 
and  new  policies  as  yet  not  even  named  save  as 
they  bear  the  names  of  some  representative  ex- 
pounder, as  Cleveland  or  Bryan  Democracy,  or 
Koosevelt  or  Taft  Republicanism ;  and  a  new 
theology  which  has  not  only  shortened  and  sim- 
plified all  creeds  but  has  sometimes  threatened 
to  destroy  them  altogether. 

These  changes  are  not  incidental;  they  are 
radical.  Schumann,  in  "  Warum  ?  "  musically  in- 
terprets the  questioning  spirit  of  the  age  which 
puts  an  interrogation  point  after  every  affirma- 
tion of  the  past,  however  long  it  may  have  been 
accepted.  In  industry  the  right  of  laborers  to 
organize  is  denied  by  capitalists,  and  the  right  of 
capitalists  to  organize  is  denied  by  laborers.  On 
the  one  hand  property  is  so  concentrated  in  a 
few  hands  for  administration  purposes  as  to  fill 
thoughtful  men  with  a  not  wholly  unreasonable 
dread  of  what  plutocracy  may  grow  to,  and  on 
the  other  hand  a  class  of  Socialists  appear  to 
deny  all  right,  if  not  of  private  property,  at  least 
of  private  property  industrially  employed.  In 
politics  there  are  both  a  New  Jefferson  ianism 
and  a  New  Federalism.  Neither  the  Democracy 
of  Cleveland  nor  that  of  Bryan  is  a  copy  of 
Thomas  Jefferson's  Democracy ;  neither  the  Fed- 
eralism of  Roosevelt  nor  that  of  Cannon  and  Al- 


THE  BIRTH  OF  DEMOCRACY  3 

drich  is  a  copy  of  the  Federalism  of  Alexander 
Hamilton.  No  Church  is  immune  from  the  New 
Theology,  not  even  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
as  the  Pope  himself  by  his  syllabus  on  Modernism 
has  attested.  And  the  New  Theology  questions 
the  basis  of  authority,  and  questions  it  so  effect- 
ually that  neither  the  Bible  nor  the  Church 
speaks  to  even  the  churchman  with  the  authority 
with  which  they  spoke  to  the  churchmen  of  a 
century  ago.  What  does  all  this  mean  ?  To  what 
does  it  all  tend  ?  What  will  it  do  with  us  ?  Per- 
haps more  important  is  the  question,  What  can 
we  do  with  it? 

Two  democracies  were  born  in  America  about 
a  century  and  a  half  apart :  one  in  the  early  half 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  the  other  in  the 
latter  half  of  the  eighteenth  century;  one  of 
Hebrew,  the  other  of  Latin,  ancestry.  They  mar- 
ried. The  democracy  of  this  twentieth  century 
is  their  child.  It  inherits  characteristics  from 
both  its  parents.  They  are  not  only  diverse; 
they  are  inconsistent.  The  child  is  perplexed  by 
its  contradictory  inheritance.  He  does  not  under- 
stand himself.  If  we  are  to  understand  him,  we 
must  understand  his  ancestors. 

Ten  or  twelve  centuries  before  Christ  there 
grew  up  in  the  Near  East  a  new  form  of  social 
organization  which  we  may  call  the  Hebrew  Com- 


4  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

monwealth.  All  the  neighboring  governments 
•were  absolute  despotisms  —  all  power  being  con- 
centrated in  the  hands  of  a  single  autocrat.  In 
the  Hebrew  Commonwealth  government  was  for 
the  first  time  organized  in  three  departments  — 
a  legislative,  an  executive,  and  a  judicial.  In  all 
the  neighboring  governments  the  power  of  the 
autocrat  was  unlimited.  In  the  Hebrew  Common- 
wealth the  king  was  a  constitutional  monarch 
whose  powers  were  somewhat  carefully  limited. 
In  the  Hebrew  Commonwealth  no  hereditary  caste 
or  class  was  permitted ;  there  was  the  State  Church, 
but  the  priesthood  were  forbidden  to  become  land- 
owners, and  were  made  dependent  for  their  sup- 
port on  the  voluntary  offerings  of  the  people ; 
methods  of  worship  were  carefully  defined,  but 
attendance  on  worship  was  not  compulsory;  pri- 
vate ownership  in  land  was  allowed,  but  only  for 
a  limited  tenure ;  labor  was  honorable  and  idle- 
ness a  disgrace ;  slavery,  though  not  prohibited, 
was  hedged  about  with  such  conditions  that  in 
the  course  of  a  few  centuries  it  disappeared; 
woman's  position,  if  not  absolutely  equal  to  that 
of  man,  was  one  of  unexampled  honor  in  that  age; 
provision  was  made  for  the  education  of  all  the 
children  by  home  instruction,  aided  by  itinerant 
school-teachers,  out  of  which  later  grew  the  first 
popular  school  system  in  the  then  known  world. 


THE  BIRTH  OF  DEMOCRACY  5 

And  this  whole  system  was  founded  on  a  religion 
which  had  in  its  creed  but  two  articles :  that  God 
is  a  righteous  Father  who  has  made  man  in  his 
own  image,  between  whom  and  man,  therefore, 
the  comradeship  of  father  and  son  is  possible ; 
that  he  requires  of  his  children  righteousness  and 
requires  nothing  else,  and  therefore  the  way  to 
his  favor  is  not  by  sacrifices  and  offerings  but  by 
doing  justly,  loving  mercy, and  walking  reverently 
in  fellowship  with  him. 

How  far  this  ideal  was  ever  actually  realized  in 
the  history  of  Israel  is  doubted  by  scholars.  It  is 
certainly  incorporated  in  their  sacred  books.  With 
Christianity  these  sacred  books,  translated  into  the 
Latin  tongue,  bound  together,  and  bearing  the 
title  of  "  The  Books  "  (now  generally,  by  a  trans- 
literation of  the  Greek, "The  Bible"), passed  over 
into  the  nominally  converted  Roman  Empire. 
Alfred  the  Great,  the  first  great  king  and  leader 
of  the  English  people,  translated  portions  of  these 
books  into  the  Anglo-Saxon  tongue,  and  incor- 
porated certain  of  their  fundamental  ideals  into 
the  English  Constitution.  Gradually  the  political 
and  religious  principles  of  these  books  made  their 
way,  against  much  opposition  and  more  indiffer- 
ence, into  the  life  of  the  English  people.  Inspired 
by  them,  Simon  de  Montfort  led  the  movement 
which  brought  representatives  of  the  common 


6  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

people  into  the  National  Council,  and  created  out 
of  it  a  House  of  Commons.  Imitating  the  ex- 
ample of  the  itinerant  Levites,  the  "preaching 
friars"  carried  the  simple  precepts  of  these  books 
to  the  homes  and  imbedded  them  in  the  hearts  of 
the  people.  These  principles  made  of  Wyclif  a 
social  reformer  before  socialism,  a  democrat  be- 
fore democracy,  and  a  Protestant  before  Protest- 
antism. Tyndale  carried  on  the  work  which 
Wyclif  began,  and  created  a  public  opinion 
which  made  possible  Henry  VIII's  separation  of 
the  English  Church  from  Italian  control.  At 
length,  in  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, the  long  campaign  between  the  autocratic 
principles  which  the  English  people  had  inherited 
from  the  Rome  of  the  Caesars,  culminating  in  the 
despotism  of  Charles  I,  and  the  democratic  prin- 
ciples which  they  had  inherited  from  the  Hebrew 
Commonwealth  culminating  in  the  principles  of 
the  Puritans,  issued  in  the  overthrow  of  the  Stuart 
oligarchy,  and  incidentally  in  the  immigration  to 
New  England  of  Puritan  and  Pilgrim.  These 
brought  with  them  the  purpose  to  found  on  these 
shores  a  new  republic  patterned  after  the  Hebrew 
theocracy,  embodying  its  social  and  religious  prin- 
ciples, and  inspired  by  its  spirit.  The  earliest 
democracy  in  America  was  a  Puritan  child  with 
a  Hebrew  ancestry. 


THE  BIRTH  OF  DEMOCRACY  7 

The  other  democracy  had  a  very  different  line- 
age, and  inherited  from  its  ancestry  different  prin- 
ciples and  a  different  spirit. 

Imperial  Rome  was  an  absolute  despotism, 
with  labor  enslaved,  popular  education  unknown, 
marriage  a  commercial  partnership,  religion 
wholly  dissociated  from  morality  —  a  ceremo- 
nialism framed  to  appease  the  wrath  of  angry 
gods  or  win  the  favor  of  corruptible  gods.  The 
Bourbon  dynasties  of  Italy  and  Spain  and  France 
had  inherited  this  imperialism,  modified  and  ame- 
liorated by  a  Roman  Christianity.  But  Roman 
Christianity  had  done  nothing  to  ameliorate  the 
despotism  of  the  government  in  France,  nor  much 
to  promote  the  education  of  the  people ;  though 
under  its  influence  slavery  had  given  place  to 
feudalism  as  an  industrial  system,  and  marriage 
had  become,  in  the  estimate  of  Christian  believers, 
an  indissoluble  sacrament.  But  in  the  latter  half 
of  the  eighteenth  century  the  influence  of  the 
Christian  Church  with  the  common  people  in 
France  was  greatly  weakened,  especially  in  the 
great  cities.  The  Renaissance  had  brought  with 
it  a  revival  of  paganism;  persecution  had  de- 
stroyed the  adherents  of  the  reformed  religion ; 
the  mocking  laughter  of  Voltaire  had  done  more 
to  shake  the  faith  of  the  people  in  the  Church  of 
Rome  than  all  the  arguments  of  Calvin  ;  the  vices 


8  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

of  the  higher  clergy  and  their  identification  with 
the  oppressive  oligarchy  had  done  more  than  Vol- 
taire. The  Church  retained  the  appearance  but 
not  the  reality  of  power  when  it  lost  its  hold  on 
the  conscience  of  France.  It  could  neither  inspire 
the  ruling  classes  with  a  spirit  of  reform  nor  re- 
strain the  passions  of  the  mob  when  hunger  drove 
them  to  desperation.  The  aristocracy  was  over- 
thrown, but  the  people  had  no  other  conception 
of  government  than  government  by  force,  and  no 
other  conception  of  liberty  than  the  substitution 
of  an  unchecked  rule  by  many  for  an  unchecked 
rule  by  the  few.  "  As  nature,"  says  Rousseau, 
"gives  to  every  man  absolute  power  over  the  mem- 
bers of  his  body,  the  social  pact  gives  the  social 
body  absolute  power  over  all  its  members."  l  The 
despotism  of  an  unrestrained  mob  proved  to  be 
as  despotic  as  that  of  an  unrestrained  oligarchy, 
and  France  soon  sought  relief  from  the  Reign  of 
Terror  in  a  new  imperialism. 

Meanwhile  the  theories  of  the  French  political 
reformers  had  crossed  the  Channel  into  England, 
where  Jacobinism  proved  a  temporary  and  un- 
popular exotic.  They  simultaneously  crossed  the 
sea  to  America,  where,  mingled  with  and  modi- 

1  Quoted  by  H.  A.  Taine  in  his  French  Revolution,  vol.  iii,  p.  54. 
Taine  gives  a  graphic  picture  of  the  length  to  which  this  despot- 
ism of  the  majority  was  carried  under  Jacobin  rule. 


THE  BIRTH  OF  DEMOCRACY  9 

fied  by  the  Anglo-Saxon  sturdy  love  of  individ- 
ual independence,  they  gave  birth  to  a  new  type 
of  democracy.  The  fundamental  theory  of  Rous- 
seau, that  government  is  founded  on  a  social  com- 
pact and  that  the  authority  of  government  is 
derived  from  and  dependent  on  the  will  of  the 
people  assenting  to  it,  found  expression  in  the 
statement  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
that  just  government  rests  on  the  consent  of  the 
governed.  But  the  Anglo-Saxon  love  of  indepen- 
dence also  found  expression  in  the  statement 
that  man  possesses  certain  inalienable  rights,  as 
to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness, 
which  no  pact  by  him  or  on  his  behalf  can  take 
from  him.  To  protect  the  individual  in  these  in- 
alienable rights  should  be  the  end,  so  said  the 
advocates  of  the  new  democracy,  and  the  sole 
end,  of  government.  "  The  Constitution  of  Ala- 
bama," says  Mr.  Lecky,  "expresses  admirably 
the  best  spirit  of  American  statesmanship  when 
it  states  that '  the  sole  and  only  legitimate  end 
of  government  is  to  protect  the  citizen  in  the  en- 
joyment of  life,  liberty,  and  property,  and  when 
the  government  assumes  other  functions  it  is 
usurpation  and  oppression.' ' 

Thus  the  new  American  democracy  differed 
from  the  original  Jacobin  democracy  of  France 

1   W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  Democracy  and  Liberty,  vol.  i,  p.  118. 


10  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

as  the  English  monarchy  had  differed  from  the 
French  monarchy.  In  France  the  democracy  pos- 
sessed absolute  power;  in  America  that  power 
was  limited  by  definite  checks.  Absolute  mon- 
archy was  succeeded  by  absolute  democracy  in 
France ;  the  constitutional  monarchy  of  the 
English  was  followed  by  a  constitutional  demo- 
cracy in  America. 

At  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  and  the  begin- 
ning of  the  nineteenth  century  this  naturalized 
and  modified  French  democracy  had  in  America 
hosts  of  enthusiastic  and  devoted  disciples.  How 
many,  how  influential,  and  how  enthusiastic  they 
were  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  in  Yale  College 
there  were  two  Thomas  Paine  societies,  and  many 
of  the  students  substituted  for  their  Christian 
names  the  names  of  some  chosen  and  idealized 
French  encyclopedists.  The  philosophy  of  this 
Latin  or  French  democracy  as  modified  by  its 
migration  to  America  may  be  summarized  for  my 
purpose  in  a  paragraph,  as  I  have  endeavored  to 
summarize  that  of  the  Hebrew  or  Puritan  de- 
mocracy. 

The  state  of  nature  is  the  ideal  state ;  let  us 
get  back  to  it.  In  a  state  of  nature  every  man  is 
free  to  live  his  own  life,  direct  his  own  energies, 
carve  out  his  own  destiny.  Every  impediment 
upon  this  freedom  is  an  injury  to  humanity.  All 


THE  BIRTH  OF  DEMOCRACY  11 

government  is  such  an  impediment.  A  little 
government  is  absolutely  necessary  to  protect  the 
weak  from  the  strong,  but  government  is  a  nec- 
essary evil,  and  the  less  we  have  of  it  the  better. 
Humanity  has  simply  consented  to  it  in  order  to 
protect  itself.  It  should  constrain  only  to  free 
from  constraint.  On  this  consent  of  the  governed 
government  is  founded.  This  is  the  basis  of  all 
authority.  The  ultimate  appeal  is  to  the  people ; 
for  the  voice  of  the  people  is  the  voice  of  God 
—  that  is,  if  there  is  a  God.  Whether  there  be 
one  or  not,  it  is  not  material  to  inquire ;  for  the 
voice  of  the  people  is  final.  A  just  government 
is  a  government  carried  on  in  accordance  with 
the  will  of  the  majority;  an  unjust  government 
is  one  carried  on  not  in  accordance  with  that 
will 

Thus  at  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury there  were  two  democracies  in  America: 
one  having  its  birthplace  and  home  in  New  Eng- 
land, though  gradually  extending  its  influence 
beyond  the  boundaries  of  New  England;  the 
other  having  its  birthplace  and  home  in  Vir- 
ginia, and  much  more  rapidly  extending  its  in- 
fluence beyond  the  boundaries  of  Virginia.  One 
was  founded  on  faith  in  God,  the  other  was  un- 
theistic  if  not  atheistic.  To  one,  the  basis  of  all 
authority  is  the  will  of  God ;  to  the  other,  the 


12  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

will  of  the  majority.  To  one,  law  is  the  will  of 
God,  the  expression  of  that  will  is  in  the  Ten 
Commandments,  and  human  laws  are  just  only 
when  they  are  in  harmony  with  that  will ;  to  the 
other,  law  is  the  expression  of  the  will  of  the  ma- 
jority, and  any  government  is  just  which  is 
founded  on  and  is  the  expression  of  that  will, 
and  no  other  government  is  or  can  be  just.  One 
desired  to  limit  the  suffrage  to  those  who  were 
obedient  to  the  will  of  God,  though  they  found 
it  difficult  to  provide  a  satisfactory  test;  the 
other  believed  in  universal  and  unqualified  suf- 
frage. One  honored  labor  whether  it  was  man- 
ual or  intellectual,  and  condemned  idleness 
whether  of  poverty  or  wealth.  The  other  soon 
learned  to  engraft  upon  its  free  States  a  system 
of  slavery  not  materially  different  from  that  of 
pagan  Rome.  One  borrowed  from  Hebraism  the 
synagogue  school,  transformed  it  into  a  public 
school  supported  by  the  State ;  the  other  left 
education  to  be  carried  on  by  the  family  as  a 
private  enterprise,  aided  by  the  private  school,  by 
the  Church,  and  by  occasional  charity.  One  was 
social,  the  other  individual.  One  tended  toward 
cooperation,  combination,  organization;  the  other 
toward  competition.  One  looked  forward  toward 
realizing  the  kingdom  of  God  on  the  earth,  the 
other  sought  to  return  to  the  state  of  nature. 


THE  BIRTH  OF  DEMOCRACY  13 

The  motto  of  one  was  the  law  of  Christ :  One  is 
your  Master,  even  Christ,  and  all  ye  are  breth- 
ren. The  motto  of  the  other  was  the  law  of  the 
forest:  Struggle  for  existence,  survival  of  the 
fittest. 

Out  of  these  two  democracies,  one  the  child  of 
French  and  Roman  ancestry,  the  other  the  child  of 
Puritan  and  Hebrew  ancestry,  the  American  dem- 
ocracy of  the  twentieth  century  was  born.  In  the 
child  the  contradictory  characteristics  of  its  ances- 
tors are  struggling,  each  modifying  the  other.  By 
the  principles  furnished  by  these  two  democracies 
—  the  individual  and  the  social  —  the  twentieth- 
century  democracy  is  guided  in  opposite  direc- 
tions. By  the  impulses  which  they  furnish  it  is 
urged  now  upon  the  one  path,  now  upon  the 
other. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE   TENDENCY   OF   DEMOCRACY 

IN  which  of  these  directions,  the  fraternal  or  the 
individual,  has  America  been  tending  for  the  last 
hundred  and  thirty  years  ?  In  which  of  these 
directions  should  thoughtful  Americans  endeavor 
to  guide  the  country? 

In  which  direction  America  has  been  tending 
is  tolerably  clear  to  all  observers,  whether  they 
approve  or  disapprove  the  tendency. 

The  immediate  occasion  of  the  Civil  War  was 
the  question  between  the  sections,  whether  slav- 
ery was  a  beneficent  form  of  industrial  organiza- 
tion and  should  be  protected  throughout  the  Na- 
tion, or  an  unjust  and  injurious  form  of  industrial 
organization  and  should  be  confined  within  its  then 
existing  limits  in  the  expectation  of  its  ultimate  ab- 
olition. The  proximate  cause  of  the  Civil  War  was 
two  contrasted  opinions  respecting  the  interpreta- 
tion of  a  written  Constitution  upon  two  questions 
on  which  that  Constitution  was  absolutely  silent : 
Had  a  State  a  right  to  secede?  If  it  attempted 
to  secede,  had  the  Federal  Government  a  right  to 
compel  it  to  remain  in  the  Union  ?  But  underly- 
ing both  questions  was  the  still  more  f  undamen- 


THE  TENDENCY  OF  DEMOCRACY         15 

tal  issue  between  the  Hebraic  or  Puritan  concep- 
tion of  government  and  the  Latin  or  French  con- 
ception of  government. 

The  doctrine  that  all  government  is  founded/ 
on  a  compact,  when  applied  to  the  United  States^ 
naturally  led  to  the  affirmation  that  the  Nation1! 
was  a  confederation  of  independent  and  sovereignf 
States.  The  doctrine  that  all  government  rests' 
on  the  consent  of  the  governed,  when  applied  to 
such  a  supposed  confederation,  naturally  led  to 
the  conclusion  that  if  the  consent  of  any  one  or 
more  of  these  sovereign  States  was  withdrawn,  the 
government  over  them  ceased  to  be  a  just  govern- 
ment, and  the  right  either  of  repudiation  or  of 
revolution  followed.  To  Calhoun  and  his  politi- 
cal associates  this  meant  nullification,  or  the  right 
of  a  sovereign  State  in  the  exercise  of  its  sover- 
eignty to  refuse  its  assent  to  any  Federal  law 
which  it  deemed  unjust.  To  Jefferson  Davis  and 
his  associates  it  meant  the  right  of  a  sovereign 
State  to  withdraw  from  the  confederacy  alto- 
gether when  the  acts  of  the  confederation  were 
injurious  to  its  interests.  How  pervasive  this 
doctrine  that  government  rests  on  the  con- 
sent of  the  governed  had  become  in  America  is 
evidenced  by  the  fact  that  Mr.  Buchanan,  who 
denied  the  right  of  a  state  to  secede,  also  denied 
the  right  of  the  Federal  government  to  prevent 


16  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

secession,  and  that  Horace  Greeley,  the  foremost 
anti-slavery  editor  of  the  North,  besought  the 
nation  to  let  the  erring  sisters  depart  in  peace. 

The  result  of  the  Civil  War  has  been  to  expel 
absolutely  from  the  consciousness  of  the  nation, 
both  North  and  South,  the  doctrine  that  just 
government  depends  on  the  consent  of  the  gov- 
erned. The  Union  of  to-day  is  not  what  Horace 
Greeley  feared  it  would  be,  that  of  a  triumphant 
North  over  a  subjugated  South.  It  is  a  Union  ce- 
mented by  mutual  respect,  affection,  and  esteem, 
based  on  the  tacit  assumption  that  government 
is  something  more  than  copartnership,  whether 
of  individuals  or  of  States ;  that  it  is  a  divine  or- 
ganism, deriving  its  authority,  not  from  the  con- 
sent of  the  governed,  but  from  the  justice  with 
which  the  governors  exercise  their  authority,  and 
is  neither  founded  on  consent  nor  can  be  dis- 
solved by  dissent.  Thomas  Jefferson  advocated  an 
occasional  revolution,  much  as  the  doctors  of  the 
old  school  advocated  an  occasional  blood-letting, 
as  a  useful  measure  of  hygiene.  "God  forbid 
that  we  should  be  twenty  years  without  a  rebel- 
lion. We  have  had  thirteen  States  independent 
for  eleven  years.  There  has  been  but  one  rebel- 
lion. That  comes  to  one  rebellion  in  a  century  and 
a  half  for  each  State.  What  country  ever  existed 
a  century  and  a  half  without  a  rebellion  ?  What 


THE  TENDENCY  OF  DEMOCRACY    17 

signifies  a  few  lives  lost  in  a  century  or  two  ? 
The  tree  of  liberty  must  be  refreshed  from  time 
to  time  with  the  blood  of  patriots  and  tyrants.  It 
is  its  natural  manure." 1  That  phase  of  Jeff  ersonian- 
ism  would  to-day  find  no  advocate  in  America  in 
any  section  of  the  country.  Even  the  wildest-eyed 
anarchist,  if  he  ventured  to  afiirm  it,  would  be 
listened  to,  if  at  all,  with  scant  politeness. 
i.  The  doctrine  that  government  rests  on  the 
consent  of  the  governed  carried  with  it  by  nec- 
essary implication  that  all  the  governed  must 
have  some  share  in  making  the  government. 
Universal  suffrage  as  one  of  the  natural  rights  of 
man  was  a  logically  necessary  element  in  the 
Latin  theory  of  law  and  liberty.  "  The  right  to 
vote  for  representatives,"  says  Professor  Dun- 
ning, "  was  held  to  be  an  immediate  corollary  of 
the  principle  that  every  man  was  by  nature  free 
and  could  be  subjected  to  government  only  by 
his  consent;  for  government  must  be  by  law,  and 
law  must  be  the  will  of  each  individual,  expressed 
either  in  person  or  through  a  representative."  2 
The  omnipotence  of  the  majority  carried  with 
it,  in  the  minds  of  certain  theorists,  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  majority.  Strictly  speaking,  there 

1  W.  E.  Curtis,  The  True  Thomas  Jefferson,  p.  81. 

2  W.  A.  Dunning,  A  History  of  Political  Theories  from  Luther  to 
Montesquieu,  p.  236. 


18  THE  SPIRIT  OP  DEMOCRACY 

was  no  real  minority  and  could  be  none.    Says 
Kousseau :  — 

When  a  law  is  proposed  in  an  assembly  of  the  people, 
what  is  asked  of  them  is  not  exactly  whether  they  ap- 
prove of  the  proposition  or  whether  they  reject  it,  but 
whether  or  not  it  conforms  to  the  general  will,  which 
is  theirs ;  each  one  in  giving  his  vote  gives  his  opinion 
upon  it,  and  from  the  counting  of  the  votes  is  deduced 
the  declaration  of  the  general  will.  When,  however, 
the  opinion  contrary  to  mine  prevails,  it  shows  only 
that  I  was  mistaken,  and  what  I  had  supposed  to 
be  the  general  will  was  not  general.  If  my  individual 
opinion  had  prevailed,  I  should  have  done  something 
other  than  I  had  intended,  and  then  I  should  not  have 
been  free.1 

The  Puritan  doctrine,  on  the  other  hand,  re- 
garded suffrage  as  a  prerogative  to  be  earned  by 
a  worthy  character.  "The  saints  should  govern 
the  earth,"  said  the  Puritan;  and  not  all  men 
were  saints.  In  the  early  New  England  colonies, 
therefore,  suffrage  was  conditioned  on  possession 
of  property,  possession  of  intelligence,  paying  of 
taxes,  and,  in  some  cases,  on  church  membership. 
It  is  true  that  the  disciples  of  neither  school  were 
always  consistent.  Political  theories  in  practical 
application  rarely  are  consistent.  Thomas  Jeffer- 
son advocated  a  restricted  suffrage  based  on  edu- 
1 J.  J.  Rousseau,  The  Social  Contract,  book  iv,  Chap.  2. 


THE  TENDENCY  OF  DEMOCRACY    19 

cational  and  property  qualifications.  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  the  Puritan  son  of  Puritan  ancestors, 
advocated  universal  suffrage  as  a  natural  right, 
and  would  have  it  given  to  women,  to  the  newly 
landed  immigrant,  and  to  the  just  emancipated 
negro. 

In  this  respect,  curiously,  the  doctrine  of  uni- 
versal suffrage,  as  a  natural  right,  has  dominated 
the  North,  and  limited  suffrage  now  dominates 
the  South.  I  believe  that  Massachusetts  is  the 
only  New  England  state  which  requires  educa- 
tional qualifications  as  a  condition  precedent  to 
the  vote.  On  the  other  hand,  the  South,  suffer- 
ing during  the  Reconstruction  period  from  the 
intolerable  rule  of  an  ignorant  majority,  led  by 
unscrupulous  self-seekers,  has,  with  substantial 
unanimity,  adopted  the  doctrine  that  suffrage  is 
not  a  natural  right,  but  an  acquired  prerogative, 
and  should  be  given  only  to  those  who  have 
proved  themselves  capable  of  exercising  it  for 
the  benefit  of  the  state.  Even  in  the  North,  es- 
pecially in  our  great  cities,  there  is  an  increasing 
tendency  to  question  the  practical  wisdom  or 
justice  of  universal  suffrage.  It  is  always  difficult 
to  take  away  political  power  when  once  it  has 
been  given  ;  but  the  recent  adoption  of  the  Aus- 
tralian ballot  system,  of  careful  registration,  and 
of  greater  care  in  the  naturalization  of  foreign- 


20  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

ers,  has  its  secret  cause  in  the  recognized  peril  of 
unqualified  suffrage. 

Up  to  a  very  recent  date  the  doctrine  that  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  State  to  provide  education  for 
all  the  people  was  practically  unknown  in  most 
Latin  countries.  Education  was  regarded  as  a 
function  of  either  the  family  or  the  Church,  and 
to  the  family  and  the  Church  it  was  largely  left. 
Even  to-day  in  France  the  question  whether  the 
State  or  the  Church  shall  educate  the  children 
of  the  Republic  is  probably  the  most  bitterly  con- 
tested question  in  that  country.  Half  a  century 
ago  there  was  no  public-school  system  in  the 
southern  half  of  this  country,  unless  North  Car- 
olina may  be  regarded  as  an  exception,  and  even 
there  the  exception  was  rather  theoretical  than 
practical.  To-day  there  is  no  state,  territory,  or 
possession  of  the  United  States  in  which  there  is 
not  a  more  or  less  efficient  public-school  system. 
The  Southern  States,  with  a  persistence,  a  hero- 
ism, and  a  self-sacrifice  too  little  appreciated  in 
the  North,  have  established  a  system  which  aims 
to  make  equal  provision  for  the  children  of  all 
classes  and  both  races,  in  a  settled  determination 
to  give,  so  far  as  in  them  lies,  despite  no  little 
unintelligent  and  prejudiced  opposition,  a  fair 
opportunity  for  every  child,  poor  or  rich,  black 
or  white,  to  make  the  most  he  can  of  himself. 


THE  TENDENCY  OF  DEMOCRACY         21 

Some  readers  of  this  chapter  will  remember 
with  what  combined  invective  and  derision  in 
1850  the  country  greeted  W.  H.  Se ward's  de- 
claration that  there  is  a  higher  law  than  the  Con- 
stitution. The  doctrine  that  government  grows 
out  of  a  compact  and  rests  on  the  consent  of  the 
governed  carried  with  it  the  doctrine  that  there 
could  be  no  higher  appeal  than  to  the  written 
Constitution  which  embodies  that  compact  and 
expresses  that  consent.  The  era  of  Daniel  Web- 
ster's statesmanship  was  dominated  by  that 
doctrine,  and  his  appeal  was  habitually  to  the 
Constitution  as  the  ultimate  authority.  The  coun- 
try could  go  no  higher.  The  temperance  reform, 
the  anti-slavery  reform,  the  educational  reform,  so- 
cial and  industrial  reform,  all  combined  to  compel 
attention  to  other  than  merely  constitutional 
considerations.  To-day  we  ask,  not,  What  is  con- 
stitutional? but,  What  is  right?  If  a  policy  is 
right,  we  seek  by  a  liberal  construction  of  the 
Constitution  to  find  a  way  to  secure  it ;  and  if 
that  is  impossible,  we  begin  to  question,  What 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  is  required  and  is 
practical?  In  discussing  the  currency  question, 
the  temperance  question,  the  colonial  question, 
and  the  railway-rate-regulation  question  the  peo- 
ple take  but  a  languid  interest  in  constitutional 
arguments.  They  are  effective  only  in  so  far  as 


22  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

they  produce  an  impression  that  the  law  pro- 
posed may  prove  inoperative  because  the  Su- 
preme Court  may  declare  it  unconstitutional. 
Our  questions  to-day  are,  Is  the  free  silver  or  the 
gold  standard  right?  Is  prohibition  or  limited 
license  right  ?  Is  it  right  for  us  to  govern  a  pro- 
vince which  is  not  a  part  of  self-governing  Amer- 
ica? Is  it  right  for  the  Congress  to  interfere 
with  the  regulation  of  the  railways,  or  are  they 
private  property  which  justice  requires  should 
be  left  to  private  control  ?  In  a  word,  if  we 
do  not  yet  ask,  What  are  the  laws  of  God? 
and  if  we  are  not  content  to  take  as  an  ultimate 
appeal,  as  the  Puritans  were,  the  interpretation 
of  those  laws  as  found  in  the  Old  Testament, 
still  less  are  we  content  merely  to  ask  what  past 
compacts  demand  or  present  majorities  desire. 
Political  leaders  and  editorial  writers  outvie  the 
pulpit  in  pressing  upon  their  constituencies  the 
question  whether  proposed  policies  and  platforms 
are  in  harmony  with  those  eternal  laws  of  right 
and  wrong  which,  whatever  their  basis,  find  their 
interpretation  and  their  enforcement  in  the  uni- 
versal conscience. 

Thus,  during  the  last  hundred  years,  in  these 
four  respects  the  country  has  been  steadily 
moving  away  from  the  Latinized  conception  and 
toward  the  Puritan  conception  of  law  and  lib- 


THE  TENDENCY  OF  DEMOCRACY    23 

erty :  away  from  government  founded  on  the 
consent  of  the  governed  and  toward  government 
a  divine  organism ;  away  from  universal  suffrage 
toward  limited  suffrage ;  away  from  leaving  edu- 
cation to  private  enterprise  toward  treating  edu- 
cation as  a  State  function ;  and  away  from  political 
authority  resting  on  the  will  of  majorities  to  po- 
litical authority  resting  on  eternal  and  immutable 
laws  of  right  and  wrong. 

Nor  can  I  doubt  that  this  movement  has  been 
in  the  right  direction :  that  a  social  democracy  with 
government  founded  on  the  moral  law,  and  re- 
garded as  a  divine  organism  to  be  carried  on  co- 
operatively for  the  common  benefit,  is  more  truly 
and  radically  democratic  than  an  individualistic 
democracy,  with  government  founded  on  mutual 
consent,  regarded  as  a  necessary  evil,  confined  in 
its  functions  to  the  protection  of  person  and  pro- 
perty, and  leaving  each  individual  to  take  care  of 
his  own  individual  interests  regardless  of  his  fel- 
lows, except  as  his  political  selfishness  is  modified 
by  personal  benevolence. 

So  far  I  have  treated  democracy  as  purely  polit- 
ical— that  is,  a  form  of  government.  But  it  is  more 
than  political ;  more  than  a  mere  form  of  govern- 
ment. The  spirit  of  democracy  is  the  creation 
neither  of  France  nor  of  England,  of  Latinism 
nor  of  Hebraism.  Democracy  is  primarily  the 


24  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

growth  of  humanity.  It  is  the  emergence  of  man 
from  a  state  of  pupilage  toward  the  state  of 
manhood,  with  all  his  animal  appetites  and  pas- 
sions, all  his  higher  aspirations  and  desires,  as  yet 
neither  understood  nor  controlled.  It  is  the  spirit 
of  growth,  of  progress,  of  development.  Demo- 
cracy is  not  merely  a  form  of  government ;  it  is  . 
not  merely  a  phase  of  society ;  it  is  a  spirit  of  life. 
Democracy,  therefore,  does  not  merely  have  to  do 
with  the  political  organization.  It  is  the  reign  of 
the  common  people  in  every  department  of  life. 
It  therefore  revolutionizes  every  department  of 
life :  architecture,  mechanics,  invention,  litera- 
ture, art,  the  home,  the  school,  industry,  govern- 
ment, religion.  Latin  democracy  and  Hebrew 
democracy  are  only  the  directions  in  which  this 
movement  of  the  common  people  is  being  di- 
rected. A  brief  glance  at  the  course  of  the  last 
hundred  years  will  suffice  to  illustrate  this  truth ; 
a  volume  would  be  needed  fully  to  interpret  its 
various  applications. 

Demos  builds  no  temples  equal  to  those  of 
Greece,  no  cathedrals  equal  to  those  of  mediaeval 
Christianity.  When  an  attempt  is  made  to  build 
one,  as  in  New  York  City  or  in  the  suburbs  of 
Washington,  there  is  a  vague  feeling  that  it  is 
an  anachronism,  a  building  born  out  of  due  time. 
Demos  builds  pewed  churches  where  the  worshiper 


THE  TENDENCY  OF  DEMOCRACY    25 

» 
may  sit  at  ease,  measures  the  service  by  its  ability 

to  serve  the  worshiper,  not  by  its  fitness  to  please 
God,  and  puts  emphasis  on  the  sermon  as  a  chief 
instrument  of  instruction  and  inspiration.  Demos 
builds  no  palaces  equal  to  those  of  ancient  times. 
But  he  builds  innumerable  homes  which  offend 
the  taste  by  barrenness  of  architectural  ornament 
or  vulgarity  of  ostentatious  display,  but  which 
abound  in  comforts  that  the  most  luxurious  lords 
of  the  Middle  Ages  or  patricians  of  ancient  Rome 
never  knew.  Demos  owns  no  finer  horses  than  the 
ancient  landed  proprietor,  and  has  no  such  gilded 
coaches  and  liveried  outriders.  The  principal  sur- 
vival of  the  old  coaching  days  is  an  occasional 
four-in-hand  driven  by  an  amateur  and  highly 
cultivated  Tony  Weller.  But  the  roads  are  incom- 
parably better  than  those  on  which  princes  jolted 
and  jostled  when  they  drove  at  all,  and  the  railway 
invented  in  the  last  century  for  the  convenience 
of  Demos  covers  in  an  hour  more  distance  than  his 
noble  ancestors  could  have  covered  in  a  day.  No 
modern  artist  in  color  surpasses  a  Titian,  a  Rem- 
brandt, a  Frans  Hals.  But  public  picture  galleries, 
unknown  before  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, give  to  the  plainest  and  humblest  of  the  people 
access  to  the  noblest  and  rarest  art.  No  wood-en- 
graving of  to-day  surpasses  that  of  AlbrechtDiirer 
in  beauty  of  design  and  perfection  of  execution ; 


26  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

but  photo-engraving,  not  yet  half  a  century  old, 
lays  the  work  of  the  designer  on  every  cottage  table. 
For  our  present  literature  we  go  back  to  the  crea- 
tive geniuses  of  the  past;  but  the  printing-press, 
which  gives  us  in  the  morning  daily  the  equivalent 
in  amount  of  a  moderate  volume  for  a  penny,  also 
puts  into  one's  hands  for  the  price  of  a  pot  of 
beer  or  a  cigar  the  great  works  of  the  great  mas- 
ters. And  the  first  public  library,  established  in 
England  in  1850,  has  been  followed  by  such  a  pro- 
geny of  children  that  in  the  United  States  there 
is  scarcely  to  be  found  in  any  except  the  most 
sparsely  settled  States  any  town  of  moderate  size 
without  its  library  free  to  all  the  people.  The 
public  school  puts  the  fundamentals  of  education 
within  the  reach  of  the  great  majority  of  the 
children  of  even  the  poorest  and  less  educated ; 
and  the  half -million  of  pupils  who  crowd  the  high 
schools,  which  have  been  in  existence  but  little 
over  half  a  century,  bear  witness  to  the  avidity 
with  which  the  higher  branches  of  education  are 
sought  by  increasing  numbers  of  boys  and  girls. 
In  short,  democracy  means  radical  changes  in 
all  the  material  conditions  of  life,  and  in  the 
nature  and  the  spirit  of  life :  in  the  means  of  in- 
tercommunication and  transportation ;  in  the  tools 
and  implements  of  industry ;  in  the  comforts  of 
the  homes;  in  the  opportunities  for  self -develop- 


THE  TENDENCY  OF  DEMOCRACY         27 

ment;  in  the  fundamental  conceptions  of  the  aims 
and  the  uses  of  the  institutions  of  religion.  It 
means  not  merely  government  of  the  people,  by 
the  people,  and  for  the  people :  it  means,  no  less, 
wealth,  industry,  education,  religion,  —  in  a  word, 
life,  —  for  the  people.  That  in  this  developing 
life  we  are  to  accept  the  guidance  of  the  Hebrew- 
Puritan  democracy  rather  than  that  of  the  Latin- 
French  democracy,  the  theistic  rather  than  the 
untheistic,  the  social  rather  than  the  individual, 
appears  to  me  so  axiomatic  that  it  needs  only  to 
be  clearly  apprehended  in  order  to  be  approved. 
At  all  events,  I  shall  assume  that  we  are  tending, 
and  that  we  ought  to  tend,  in  the  direction  of  a 
social  democracy ;  and  I  shall  try  to  indicate  what 
light  this  guiding  principle  throws  on  the  current 
questions  of  the  Family,  the  School,  Industry, 
and  Politics. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE    PAGAN    IDEAL     OF    THE    FAMILY 

MR.  ZANGWILL  has  characterized  America  as  a 
"Melting-Pot."  Not  merely  various  races,  nation- 
alities, and  religious  sects  are  thrown  into  this 
melting-pot,  but,  no  less,  conflicting  ideas  and 
ideals.  All  creeds,  traditions,  theories,  institutions, 
are  brought  into  the  laboratory  by  democracy  to 
be  analyzed.  In  this  process,  the  more  radical 
and  revolutionary  the  reformer,  the  more  sure  he 
is  of  a  hearing.  Curiosity  is  agog,  and  the  more 
novel  the  hypothesis,  the  more  eager  we  are  to 
know  what  it  is.  The  experience  of  the  past 
counts  for  little,  partly  because  the  modern  re- 
former is  often  ignorant  of  the  past,  partly  be- 
cause in  his  eager  and  impatient  haste  for  change 
he  regards  the  convictions  of  his  ancestors  as  val- 
uable only  because  they  show  him  what  to  avoid. 

The  family  is  the  oldest  and  the  most  sacred, 
as  it  is  the  most  fundamental,  of  all  social  organ- 
isms, but  the  family  is  not  exempt  from  this  pro- 
cess of  reinvestigation.  There  is  no  possible 
question  about  the  family  that  is  not  asked,  no 
possible  change  in  the  family  that  is  not  proposed. 

Ought  the  family  to  be  one  husband  and  one 


THE  PAGAN  IDEAL  OF  THE  FAMILY    29 

wife,  or  one  husband  and  several  wives?  Poly- 
gamy is  no  longer  a  relic  of  ancient  times.  It 
has  reappeared  on  American  soil  in  an  ecclesias- 
tical organization  which  absolutely  dominates  po- 
litically one  State  and  holds  the  balance  of  power 
in  at  least  one  other  State.  Philosophers  have 
sometimes  excused  polygamy  as  an  economic  ne- 
cessity in  the  earlier  stages  of  society.  Jesus  ex- 
plained its  permitted  existence  in  the  Hebraic 
Commonwealth  as  a  concession  to  human  passion. 
But  Mormonism  has  glorified  polygamy  as  a  divine 
institution,  has  urged  it  upon  women  as  a  con- 
dition of  future  canonization,  if  not  of  future 
salvation.  Whether  the  canonization  or  the  sal- 
vation which  several  women  get  by  marrying  such 
a  single  husband  as  they  usually  get  under  such 
a  system  is  worth  the  price  it  costs  them  is  a 
doubtful  question.  If  it  be  true  that  polygamy  is 
decreasing,  or  has  even  absolutely  ceased,  the  fact 
is  due,  not  to  a  conversion  from  the  Mormon  faith, 
but  to  a  concession  to  Gentile  prejudice.  I  am  not 
aware  that  polyandry,  or  the  marriage  of  one 
woman  to  several  husbands,  has  been  seriously 
proposed  in  America.  We  are  grateful  to  the 
reformers  for  that ;  but  I  suspect  that'  their  re- 
serve is  due  to  the  fact  that  there  are  not  men 
enough  to  go  around.  , 

What  is  the  nature  of  the  family  ?  Is  it  a  di- 


30  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

vine  organism  ?  or  is  it  simply  an  economic  and 
social  partnership?  Do  this  husband  and  wife 
come  together  to  constitute  the  basic  institution 
on  which  all  society  rests?  or  do  they  come 
together  for  industrial  or  social  advantage?  Is 
this  marriage  permanent  or  temporary  ?  Do  they 
marry  for  "  better  or  worse,  for  richer  or  poorer, 
in  sickness  and  in  health,  till  death  us  do  part "  ? 
or  do  they  marry  until  the  wife's  fortune  is  run 
through,  or  the  husband  meets  with  bankruptcy, 
or  until  one  or  the  other  discovers  faults  in  the 
mate  before  not  suspected,  or  until  one  becomes 
an  invalid  and  the  other  grows  weary  of  the  watch- 
ing, or  until  some  complaisant  and  convenient 
court  can  be  found  to  part  these  two,  who  do 
not  need  to  wait  for  death  ?  These  questions  are 
not  put  by  a  satirist  or  a  cynic ;  they  are  the  ques- 
tions that  actually  confront  American  society  to- 
day. It  has  been  well  said  by  an  American  humorist 
that  the  difference  between  a  Mormon  and  some 
other  Americans  is  that  the  Mormon  drives  his 
wives  abreast  and  the  other  drives  them  tandem. 
In  the  decade  ending  1906,  600,593  divorces 
were  granted  in  the  United  States  of  America. 
For  convenience  of  arithmetical  figuring,  let  us 
call  them  600,000.  This  would  be  60,000  a  year. 
If  we  grant  three  hundred  working  days  in  the 
year,  and  I  do  not  think  any  court  in  the  United 


THE  PAGAN  IDEAL  OF  THE  FAMILY    31 

States  works  as  many  days  as  that,  the  American 
courts  have  granted  two  hundred  divorces  a  day ; 
and  if  we  allow  eight  working  hours  for  the  day, 
and  I  think  few  courts  work  more  hours,  the  courts 
have  granted  twenty- five  divorces  every  hour  of 
every  working  day  for  the  ten  years  ending  in 
1906 !  Evidently  marriage  is  not  very  permanent 
in  America. 

In  marriage  what  are  the  relations  between  hus- 
band and  wife?  Is  she  simply  an  upper  servant 
or  an  agreeable  toy  ?  That  she  is  simply  an  upper 
servant  would  seem  to  be  implied  by  one  of  the 
decisions  of,  I  think,  a  California  court,  which 
divorced  the  husband  from  the  wife  because  she 
had  failed  to  sew  on  his  shirt-buttons  for  him.  Is 
she  the  money-spender  and  he  the  money-getter  ? 
This  would  seem  to  be  the  idea  of  a  woman  whom 
I  heard  of  in  Europe  last  year.  She  met  a  friend, 
who  asked, "  Where  is  your  daughter?  "  "  I  have 
put  my  daughter  in  a  convent  school,  and  I  am 
going  to  travel."  "  But  where  is  your  husband?" 
"Somebody  has  got  to  stay  at  home  and  earn  the 
money ! " 

Does  marriage  entail  any  duties  upon  the  hus- 
band other  than  supporting  the  wife  ?  Does  it 
entail  any  duties  upon  the  wife  other  than  living 
without  unreasonable  complaints  on  such  support 
as  the  husband  can  provide  for  her  ?  Or  should 


32  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

the  wife  be  the  wage-earner  and  the  man  be  sup- 
ported by  her?  This  theory  is  not  infrequently 
exemplified  in  practice,  but  since  no  reformer 
ventures  to  defend  it  in  theory,  I  do  not  here 
consider  it. 

Finally,  does  parenthood  entail  any  duty  upon 
the  parents?  Do  the  father  and  the  mother  owe 
any  personal  duty  to  the  child  whom  they  have 
brought  into  the  world  ?  In  considerable  sections 
of  American  society  such  duty  is  ignored.  By 
some  reformers  it  is  formally  denied.  Our  indus- 
trial system  is  such  that  thousands  of  fathers, 
working  ten  or  twelve  hours  a  day,  rarely  see 
their  children  except  in  bed  or  on  Sundays  and 
holidays.  A  less  number  of  mothers,  compelled 
to  eke  out  the  inadequate  subsistence  earned  by 
their  husbands,  leave  their  children  in  day  nur- 
series while  they  maintain  by  their  labor  their 
overpraised  economic  independence.  At  the  other 
end  of  the  social  scale  are  men  and  women  who 
are  prevented,  not  by  their  industry,  but  by  their 
idleness,  from  giving  any  personal  attention  to 
their  offspring.  Such  a  mother,  whose  daughter 
was  regularly  late  at  school,  apologized  to  the 
teacher  by  saying :  "  Of  course  I  am  never  up  at 
half-past  eight,  when  my  daughter  should  be 
starting  from  home,  and  one  can  never  trust  one's 
servants  to  be  punctual."  The  reformer  who  pro- 


THE  PAGAN  IDEAL  OF  THE  FAMILY    33 

poses  that  children  should  be  turned  over  to  ex- 
perts, that  the  mothers  may  be  released  from  the 
cares  of  motherhood,  only  puts  into  words  the 
method  of  parental  dealing  with  children  which 
mothers  preceding  her  have  put  into  practice. 

Finally,  might  it  not  be  better  to  abolish  mar- 
riage altogether,  or  have  temporary  and  experi- 
mental marriages?  One  reformer  has  proposed 
the  latter  course.  It  is  due  to  her,  however,  to 
say  that  she  simply  suggests  that  it  would  be 
better  for  the  husband  and  wife  to  try  the  experi- 
ment for  a  year,  and,  if  it  failed,  try  again,  than 
to  be  permanently  married  and  to  separate  at  the 
end  of  the  year  by  means  of  a  divorce  decree.  One 
so-called  reformer  urges  the  abolition  practically  of 
marriage  altogether.  G.  Bernard  Shaw  writes: 
"  What  we  must  fight  for  is  freedom  to  breed  the 
race  without  being  hampered  by  the  mass  of  irrele- 
vant conditions  implied  in  the  institution  of  mar- 
riage. .  .  .  What  we  need  is  freedom  for  people 
who  have  never  seen  each  other  and  never  intend 
to  see  each  other  again  to  produce  children  under 
certain  definite  public  conditions  without  loss  of 
honor."  l  Recent  investigation  into  the  so-called 
white-slave  traffic  indicates  that  a  state  of  condi- 
tions already  exists  in  certain  of  our  great  cities 

1  Quoted  by  C.  W.  Saleeby,  Parenthood  and  Race  Culture, 
p.  179. 


34  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

which  does  not  differ  materially  from  G.  Bernard 
Shaw's  ideal,  and  which,  so  far  as  known,  has  not 
contributed  to  the  breeding  of  a  noble,  progres- 
sive, and  promising  race.  It  is  true  that  G.  Ber- 
nard Shaw  is  not  to  be  taken  seriously,  because  he 
does  not  take  himself  seriously.  He  likes  to  shock 
us,  and  I  decline  to  be  shocked.  But  the  fact  that 
he  gives  this  message  to  the  twentieth  century, 
and  the  twentieth  century  listens  to  it,  taken  in 
connection  with  the  serious  conditions  concern- 
ing marriage  and  divorce  which  I  have  already 
described,  is  not  without  significance. 

Such  are  some  of  the  questions  which  we  are 
to-day  asking  of  ourselves  in  America  concern- 
ing the  family.  Is  the  family  founded  on  the 
marriage  of  one  husband  to  one  wife,  or  of  one 
husband  to  many  wives?  If  one  husband  to 
many  wives,  should  he  have  them  living  together 
in  one  home,  or  should  he  have  them  in  succes- 
sion, each  one  in  turn  departing  to  make  room 
for  her  successor  ?  Is  the  family  the  social  unit 
on  which  the  organization  of  Church  and  State 
and  industry  depends,  or  is  it  a  mere  incident  in 
a  purely  individualistic  society  ?  Should  marriage 
be  permanent  or  transient,  for  life  or  for  the 
mutual  pleasure  of  the  parties?  Does  the  hus- 
band owe  any  duties  to  the  wife  ?  Does  the  wife 
owe  any  duties  to  the  husband?  If  so,  what  are 


THE  PAGAN  IDEAL  OF  THE  FAMILY    35 

they  ?  Do  they  owe  any  duties  to  their  children, 
or  may  they  leave  their  children  to  be  super- 
intended, nursed,  educated,  and  trained  vicari- 
ously for  them  by  trained  servants,  by  private 
benevolence,  or  by  the  State  ?  These  questions 
are  asked  to-day  in  America,  not  only  theoreti- 
cally by  reformers,  but  practically  by  current  so- 
cial customs.  On  these  questions  the  experience 
of  the  past  throws  some  light.  What  has  that  ex- 
perience to  tell  us  ? 

At  first  the  wife  was  the  slave,  or  serf,  of  the 
husband.  He  sometimes  had  many  wives ;  but 
polygamy  was  always  rare  even  in  polygamous 
countries,  because  considerations  of  economy 
prevented  general  indulgence  in  polygamy. 
There  are  few  men  in  Turkey  or  in  Utah  who  are 
rich  enough  to  maintain  a  household  with  a 
number  of  wives.  But  whether  marriage  was 
polygamous  or  monogamous,  the  wife  was  the 
serf  of  the  household.  There  was  no  contract  of 
marriage,  no  mutual  assenting,  no  asking,  "  Wilt 
thou?"  or  "Wilt  thou  not?"  The  bride  was 
captured  in  war  or  bought  with  a  price.  Even 
the  courtship  was  founded  on  this  conception  of 
capture,  for  one  ordinary  method  of  courtship  was 
for  the  woman  to  run  as  fast  as  she  could,  while 
the  man  ran  after  her  until  he  overtook  her. 
Having  once  entered  into  this  relationship,  she 


36  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

became  absolutely  her  husband's  property.  He 
could  sell  her,  he  could  give  her  away,  he  could 
lay  any  burdens  upon  her,  impose  on  her  any 
tasks,  could  chastise  her  at  will.  She  was  as 
much  his  servant  as  the  slave  whom  he  had 
bought  in  the  market,  as  absolutely  subject  to 
his  will  as  the  child  that  had  been  born  in  his 
family.  The  marriage  thus  formed  was  largely 
a  commercial  employment.  The  wife  was  taken 
that  she  might  perform  drudgery  and  toil  which 
the  man  was  reluctant  to  perform ;  or  she  was 
taken  that  she  might  bring  to  him  children,  who 
could  be  sold  in  the  market  if  they  were  daugh- 
ters, or,  if  they  were  sons,  used  to  bring  by  mar- 
riage other  women  into  the  household,  and  so  in- 
crease the  domestic  service. 

Out  of  this  grew  a  new  experiment.  If  this 
commercial  and  industrial  partnership  had  for  its 
end  the  raising  of  children,  and  these  children 
were  an  asset  of  the  State,  why  should  not  the 
State  undertake  the  work  ?  why  should  not  the 
State  supervise  the  marriage?  why  should  not 
the  State  determine  what  man  and  what  woman 
might  marry,  what  children  should  be  reared, 
and  what  children  should  be  preserved?  Plato 
proposed  this.  He  suggested  a  community  of 
wives  and  a  community  of  children,  with  the 
added  suggestion  that  they  should  be  so  brought 


THE  PAGAN  IDEAL  OF  THE  FAMILY    37 

up  that  by  no  possibility  should  the  child  know 
its  own  mother.  When  I  read  Plato,  I  am  always 
in  doubt  whether  I  am  getting  Plato  or  Socrates, 
and  when  I  read  the  story  of  Xantippe  I  think 
possibly  that  the  suggestion  may  have  come  from 
Socrates,  who  might  well  have  wished  that  no 
husband  should  know  his  own  wife.  This  theoret- 
ical suggestion  of  Plato  was  put  in  operation  by 
Sparta.  The  industrial  and  economic  organiza- 
tion which  had  been  called  the  family  was  taken 
in  charge  by  the  State,  was  put  under  the  super- 
vision and  control  of  the  State,  and  the  children 
were  taken  from  father  and  mother  into  the 
hands  of  the  State.  In  order  to  make  sure  that 
the  State  did  not  enter  upon  a  disadvantageous 
economic  enterprise,  the  children  were  brought 
before  triers,  and  if  the  child  proved  to  be  a 
feeble  child,  not  likely  to  do  the  work  of  the 
State,  it  was  promptly  put  to  death.  This  plan 
did  not,  however,  work  as  well  for  the  State  as 
the  reformers  had  hoped  it  would,  for  the  re- 
formers left  out  of  life  then,  as  reformers  have 
often  left  out  of  life  since,  that  which  is  the  most 
potent  force  in  all  humanity — love.  Because 
these  Spartans  had  no  homes,  no  families,  no 
wives,  no  children,  they  soon  lost  their  love  for 
their  country.  Patriotism  was  throttled,  and  the 
State  died.  It  is  said  of  one  of  the  great  Spartan 


38  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

leaders,  sent  on  an  expedition  against  a  foreign 
foe,  that  he  betrayed  his  country,  and  sold  it,  in 
order  that  he  might  marry  the  daughter  of  the 
prince  with  whom  he  was  battling,  and  so  get  a 
wife  that  belonged  to  him  and  not  to  the  State. 

Marriage  a  condition  of  servitude,  the  wife  a 
slave,  her  property,  her  person,  her  interests,  her 
children,  all  under  the  absolute  control  of  her 
master  and  her  lord,  became  in  time  intolerable, 
and  a  reform  was  inaugurated.  Marriage  became 
a  civil  contract.  The  husband  and  the  wife  agreed 
to  marry.  And  this  civil  contract  lasted  only  so 
long  as  the  agreement  lasted.  While  husband  and 
wife  were  satisfied,  they  remained  husband  and 
wife ;  when  they  ceased  to  be  satisfied,  they  dis- 
solved their  bond  and  tried  again.  In  the  Roman 
Empire  that  plan  was  tried,  though  without  the 
checks  and  limitations  which  we  have  put  upon  it, 
when  to-day  it  has  been  put  in  practice  in  some 
of  our  States  in  the  name,  curiously  enough,  of 
woman's  rights.  On  the  whole,  I  am  inclined  to 
think  that  it  was  a  reform ;  that  a  marriage  which 
is  a  contract  is  better  than  a  marriage  which  is 
slavery,  and  a  marriage  dissoluble  by  the  contract- 
ing parties  is  better  than  a  marriage  which  puts 
the  wife,  her  person,  her  property,  everything  she 
has  or  holds  dear,  in  charge  of  one  despotic  au- 
thority. 


THE  PAGAN  IDEAL  OF  THE  FAMILY    39 

However  that  may  be,  at  the  close  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century  the  European  states  had,  in  their 
laws,  adopted  this  pagan  conception  of  marriage. 
It  is  true  that  this  pagan  conception  had  been 
ameliorated  by  human  sentiment,  and  that  some 
of  the  women  had,  despite  it,  developed  noble 
characters,  and  were  highly  honored  by  the  com- 
munity and  by  their  households.  It  is  also  true 
that  this  pagan  system  was  never  recognized  as 
true  by  the  Christian  Church,  and  was  never  ac- 
cepted as  the  whole  truth  by  the  people,  who 
usually  attempted  to  combine  with  this  pagan  con- 
ception the  Christian  ideal  of  which  I  shall  speak 
in  a  succeeding  chapter.  But  the  twofold  pagan 
conception  of  marriage,  on  the  one  hand  as  a 
civil  contract,  on  the  other  as  a  servile  subordina- 
tion of  the  woman  to  the  man,  was  woven  into 
the  fabric  of  European  laws.  In  Latin  countries 
marriage  before  a  civil  officer  was  required.  It 
might  be  followed  by  an  ecclesiastical  marriage, 
but  the  ecclesiastical  marriage  was  not  necessary 
in  law.  In  England  marriage  might  be  performed 
by  the  priest,  but  need  not  be.  It  could  also  as 
well  be  performed  by  a  civil  officer.  By  this  mar- 
riage the  wife  passed  into  the  possession  and  power 
of  her  husband,  though  not  quite  so  absolutely 
as  she  had  done  in  the  old  paganism.  But  by 
marriage  her  legal  existence  was  suspended,  or  at 


40  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

least  incorporated  and  consolidated  with  that  of  her 
husband.  All  her  property  passed  into  his  hands ; 
all  her  earnings  belonged  to  him.  Her  children 
were  legally  his  children  and  under  his  control.1 
The  only  ameliorating  circumstance  that  I  recall 
was  that,  while  her  property  passed  into  his  hands, 
he  was  also  liable  for  her  debts  reasonably  con- 
tracted by  a  person  in  her  condition.  I  am 
not  quite  sure  whether  under  English  law  the 
man  had  a  legal  right  to  chastise  his  wife,  but 
that  he  exercised  that  right  very  often  in  the 
lower  classes  English  literature  abundantly  testi- 
fies. That  supposed  right  has  not  been  wholly 
disregarded  even  in  America  to-day.  An  acquaint- 
ance of  mine  recently  congratulated  a  colored 
man  in  the  South  on  his  golden  wedding.  "  Uncle," 
he  said,  "  I  see  you  have  lived  fifty  years  with 
Aunt  Dinah."  "Yes,  sah!  I  have,  sah!"  replied 
the  husband ;  "  and  I  have  not  had  to  hit  her  a 
lick  once  in  all  that  fifty  years  !  " 

The  conception  that  woman  was  made  for  man 
and  was  to  be  educated  for  man  was  wrought 
not  only  into  the  legal  institutions  of  Europe  but 
into  its  ideals.  Rousseau  was  one  of  the  radical 

1  "By  marriage  the  husband  and  wife  are  one  person  in  law; 
that  is,  the  very  being  or  legal  existence  of  the  woman  is  sus- 
pended during  marriage,  or  at  least  is  incorporated  and  consoli- 
dated into  that  of  her  husband." — Blackstone,  Commentaries. 
Quoted  by  Dicey,  Law  and  Public  Opinion  in  England. 


THE  PAGAN  IDEAL  OF  THE  FAMILY    41 

reformers  of  his  time,  a  recognized  idealist  of  the 
close  of  the  eighteenth  century.  It  is  interesting 
to  read  what  he  said  about  the  object  of  woman 
in  creation :  — 

Women  are  specially  made  to  please  men.  All  their 
education  should  be  relative  to  men.  To  please  them, 
to  be  useful  to  them,  to  make  themselves  loved  and 
honored  by  them,  to  bring  them  up  when  young,  to 
take  care  of  them  when  grown  up,  to  counsel,  to  con- 
sole them,  to  make  their  lives  agreeable  and  pleasant 
—  these,  in  all  ages,  have  been  the  duties  of  women, 
and  it  is  for  these  duties  they  should  be  educated  from 
infancy. 

Even  in  their  religious  beliefs  the  subordina- 
tion should  be  complete :  — 

Even  if  this  religion  is  false,  the  docility  with  which 
wife  and  daughter  submit  to  the  order  of  Nature 
effaces  in  the  sight  of  God  the  sin  of  error.  Being 
incapable  of  judging  for  themselves,  they  ought  to  ac- 
cept the  decision  of  their  fathers  and  their  husbands 
like  that  of  the  Church. 1 

This  conception  that  woman  was  made  for  man, 
that  in  marriage  she  lost  her  personal  identity  and 
became  merged  and  consolidated  with  the  man, 
entered  into  and  determined  the  popular  ideal  of 
woman's  education.  She  was  to  be  educated  to  be 

1  £mile,  quoted  by  W.  E.  H.  Lecky  in  Democracy  and  Liberty, 
vol.  ii,  p.  505. 


42  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

a  wife  and  a  mother,  and  this  practically  meant 
to  be  an  upper  servant  of  her  husband  and  the 
nurse  and  governess  of  his  children.  The  only 
education  that  was  counted  as  proper  for  a  woman 
was  that  which  fitted  her  either  to  be  a  good  house- 
keeper, on  whom  the  care  of  the  younger  children 
devolved,  or  a  parlor  ornament  creditable  to  her  lord 
and  master.  She  was  to  know  how  to  cook,  to  do 
chamberwork,  and  to  nurse  the  children,  and  she 
was  to  learn  to  do  needlework,  to  play  the  piano, 
perhaps  to  draw  and  paint  a  little,  and  to  be  a  good 
conversationalist.  Charlotte  Bronte  gives  an  ac- 
count of  the  kind  of  education  which  woman  re- 
ceived in  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
It  is  thus  illustrated  in  the  prospectus  of  the  school 
to  which  she  was  sent  in  her  girlhood : — 

The  terms  for  clothing,  lodging,  boarding,  and  edu- 
cating are  ,£14  a  year,  half  to  be  paid  in  advance  when 
the  pupils  are  sent;  and  also  £1  entrance  money  for 
the  use  of  books,  etc.  The  system  of  education  com- 
prehends history,  geography,  the  use  of  globes,  gram- 
mar, writing,  and  arithmetic,  all  kinds  of  needlework, 
and  the  nicer  kinds  of  household  work,  such  as  getting 
up  fine  linen,  etc.  If  accomplishments  are  required, 
an  additional  charge  of  <£3  a  year  is  made  for  music 
or  drawing,  each.1 

I  have  thus  stated  the  questions  which  America 

1  E.  C.  Gaskell,  Life  of  Charlotte  Bronte,  chap.  4. 


THE  PAGAN  IDEAL  OF  THE  FAMILY    43 

is  asking  to-day  respecting  marriage  and  the  fam- 
ily, and  have  stated,  though  very  briefly,  the  an- 
swer which  paganism  gives  to  those  questions. 
How  far  the  answers  which  some  of  our  modern 
reformers  give  are  really  derived  from  this  ancient 
paganism  I  shall  consider  in  the  next  chapter, 
which  will  be  devoted  to  presenting,  in  contrast 
with  the  pagan  ideal,  that  which  we  have  derived 
from  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE    HEBREW   IDEAL   OF  THE   FAMILY 

THE  Hebrew  ideal  of  the  relationship  between 
man  and  woman,  and  of  marriage  and  the  fam- 
ily, growing  out  of  that  relationship,  is  found 
chiefly  in  three  passages:  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis,  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis,  and 
the  thirty-first  chapter  of  Proverbs. 

In  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  the  writer  de- 
clares that  "  God  created  man  in  his  own  image, 
in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him ;  male  and 
female  created  he  them  " ;  and  that  to  them  jointly 
he  gave  supremacy  over  the  earth :  "  God  said 
unto  them,  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  and  re- 
plenish the  earth,  and  subdue  it ;  and  have  do- 
minion over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the 
foul  of  the  air,  and  over  every  living  thing  that 
moveth  upon  the  earth."  He  is  not  represented 
as  giving  authority  to  one  over  the  other,  of 
making  the  one  for  the  other,  of  creating  the 
one  in  his  image  more  than  the  other  is  created 
in  his  image. 

The  image  of  God,  the  supremacy  over  na- 
ture, is  not  in  any  man :  it  is  not  in  any  woman ; 


THE  HEBREW  IDEAL  OF  THE  FAMILY    45 

it  is  in  humanity,  the  man  and  woman,  neither 
of  whom  completes  the  image  of  God,  neither  of 
whom  is  sovereign  on  the  earth. 

Both  the  American  and  the  English  poet  have 
truly  interpreted  this  Hebraic  conception  of  the 
relationship  of  the  sexes :  — 

Nor  equal,  nor  unequal ;  each  fulfills 

Defect  in  each,  and  always  thought  in  thought. 

Purpose  in  purpose,  will  in  will,  they  grow, 

The  single  pure  and  perfect  animal, 

The  two-celled  heart  heating  with  one  full  stroke, 

Life.' 

As  unto  the  bow  the  cord  is, 

So  unto  the  man  is  woman. 

Though  she  bends  him,  she  obeys  him ; 

Though  she  draws  him,  yet  she  follows  : 

Useless  each  without  the  other.2 

This  is  not  the  relationship  of  husband  and 
wife.  It  is  the  relationship  of  man  and  woman. 
The  two  together  make  humanity.  Man  is  not 
complete  without  the  woman ;  woman  is  not  com- 
plete without  the  man.  Woman  is  no  more  made 
for  man  than  man  is  made  for  woman.  Woman 
is  no  more  to  be  educated  for  man  than  man  is  to 
be  educated  for  woman. 

Nor  do  they  duplicate  each  other.  Their  char- 
acteristics are  not  the  same.  Their  function  in 

1  Alfred  Tennyson,  The  Princess. 
1  Henry  W.  Longfellow,  Hiawatha. 


46  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

society  is  not  the  same.  Their  education  ought 
not  to  be  the  same.  Man  is  not  a  woman  in  trou- 
sers ;  woman  is  not  a  man  in  petticoats.  Neither 
is  a  model  to  be  imitated  by  the  other,  neither 
is  the  standard  by  which  the  other  is  to  be  mea- 
sured. A  masculine  woman  and  a  feminine  man 
are  equally  abhorrent  to  nature ;  they  are  ab- 
normal specimens  of  the  race.  This  truth,  that 
man  and  woman  do  not  duplicate  but  do  comple- 
ment each  other,  which  Tennyson  and  Longfellow 
have  put  in  poetry,  Mr.  Frederic  Harrison  has 
put  in  almost  equally  beautiful  prose : — 

Who  now  wishes  to  propound  the  idle,  silly  question 
—  which  of  the  two  is  the  superior  type  ?  For  our 
part,  we  refuse  to  answer  a  question  so  utterly  un- 
meaning. Is  the  brain  superior  to  the  heart,  is  a  great 
poet  superior  to  a  great  philosopher,  is  air  superior  to 
water,  or  any  other  childish  conundrum  of  the  kind  ? 
Affection  is  a  stronger  force  in  women's  nature  than 
in  men's.  Productive  energy  is  a  stronger  force  in 
men's  nature  than  in  women's.  The  one  sex  tends 
rather  to  compel,  the  other  to  influence ;  the  one  acts 
more  directly,  the  other  more  indirectly ;  the  mind  of 
the  one  works  in  a  more  massive  way,  of  the  other  in  a 
more  subtle  and  electric  way.  But  to  us  it  is  the  height 
of  unreason  and  of  presumption  to  say  anything  what- 
ever as  to  superiority  on  one  side  or  on  the  other.  All 
that  we  can  say  is  that  where  we  need  especially  pur- 
ity, unselfishness,  versatility,  and  refinement,  we  look 


THE   HEBREW  IDEAL  OF  THE  FAMILY    47 

to  women  chiefly;  where  we  need  force,  endurance, 
equanimity,  and  justice  chiefly,  we  look  to  men.1 

The  first  chapter  of  Genesis  gives  the  Hebrew 
conception  of  manhood  and  womanhood,  the  sec- 
ond chapter  of  Genesis  the  Hebrew  conception 
of  marriage. 

We  have  lost  much  out  of  our  Bible  by  our 
unwise  literalism,  by  insisting  that  there  is  no 
poetry,  no  fiction,  no  legend,  that  all  is  prosaic 
fact;  that  only  Gradgrind  could  have  written 
the  Bible  and  only  Gradgrind  can  interpret  it. 
Let  us  read  this  second  chapter  of  Genesis  as  we 
should  read  it  if  we  found  it  in  any  other  liter- 
ature than  the  literature  of  the  Hebrew  people. 

Man  is  in  a  garden,  in  the  days  of  innocence, 
before  sin,  before  temptation,  before  society 
exists,  before  cities  are  built  or  work  is  begun. 
He  is  lonely,  this  man  in  this  garden,  and  the 
good  God  brings  to  him  one  animal  after  another 
for  companionship.  He  is  to  christen  and  to 
name  them.  The  horse  comes  saying:  "I  will 
bear  your  burdens."  —  "  Will  you  bear  my  sor- 
rows with  me  ?  "  —  "  No  !  I  cannot  do  that." 
The  dog  comes:  "I  will  watch  by  your  side."  — 
"  If  I  am  sick,  will  you  nurse  me  back  into  life  ?  " 

1  Frederic  Harrison,  Realities  and  Ideals,  p.  91.  In  some  de- 
tails I  should  put  the  contrast  differently.  Thus,  I  think,  in  a 
certain  type  of  endurance  woman  is  superior  to  man. 


48  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

—  "  No  !  I  cannot  do  that."  The  cat  comes :  "  I 
will  lie  in  your  lap,  and  you  shall  caress  me."  — 
"  And  will  you  caress  me  in  turn  ?  "  —  "  No !  I 
cannot  do  that."  The  bird  comes:  "I  will  sing 
sweet  songs  to  you."  —  "  Will  you  rejoice  with 
me  ?  »  _  «  No !  I  cannot  do  that." 

The  man  turns  from  the  animals  whom  he  has 
christened  and  says  to  his  Father :  "  None  of 
these  is  a  companion  to  me  " ;  and  the  good  God 
says :  "  No,  for  you  are  not  yet  finished.  You 
are  only  half  made ;  you  are  only  half  a  man ; 
you  have  only  half  a  life.  Wait !  See !  Out  of 
your  very  side  I  will  take  her  who  shall  be  your 
comrade.  She  shall  bear  your  sorrows  with  you, 
and  you  shall  bear  hers.  She  shall  give  you 
strength  to  carry  your  burdens,  and  you  shall 
carry  hers.  She  shall  watch  by  you  in  time  of  your 
sickness,  and  you  shall  watch  by  her.  She  shall 
sing  softly  and  sweetly  to  you,  and  your  heart 
shall  feel  the  thrill  of  the  heart  that  is  like  your 
own."  And  from  that  opening  chapter  all  through 
this  collection  of  sacred  literature  there  is  no  hint 
of  servitude  or  separation  save  as  they  appear  as 
the  outgrowth  of  selfishness  and  sin.  The  two 
are  one  in  their  creation,  co-equal  comrades. 
The  two  are  one  in  their  life,  co-equal  mates. 

The  third  Hebrew  ideal  is  contained  in  the 
thirty-first  chapter  of  Proverbs :  — 


THE  HEBREW  IDEAL  OF  THE  FAMILY    49 

A  worthy  woman  who  can  find  ? 

For  her  price  is  far  above  rubies. 

The  heart  of  her  husband  trusteth  in  her, 

And  he  shall  have  no  lack  of  gain. 

She  doeth  him  good  and  not  evil 

All  the  days  of  her  life. 

She  seeketh  wool  and  flax, 

And  worketh  willingly  with  her  hands. 

She  is  like  the  merchant-ships ; 

She  bringeth  her  bread  from  afar. 

She  riseth  also  while  it  is  yet  night, 

And  giveth  food  to  her  household, 

And  their  task  to  her  maidens. 

She  considereth  a  field,  and  buyeth  it : 

With  the  fruit  of  her  hands  she  planteth  a  vineyard. 

She  girdeth  her  loins  with  strength, 

And  maketh  strong  her  arms. 

She  perceiveth  that  her  merchandise  is  profitable : 

Her  lamp  goeth  not  out  by  night. 

She  layeth  her  hands  to  the  distaff, 

And  her  hands  hold  the  spindle. 

She  stretcheth  out  her  hand  to  the  poor  ; 

Yea,  she  reacheth  forth  her  hands  to  the  needy. 

She  is  not  afraid  of  the  snow  for  her  household ; 

For  all  her  household  are  clothed  with  scarlet. 

She  maketh  for  herself  carpets  of  tapestry  ; 

Her  clothing  is  fine  linen  and  purple. 

I  venture  to  say  that  not  in  pagan  literature, 
not  in  the  ethics  of  Confucius,  not  in  the  Vedic 
hymns,  not  in  the  poetry  of  Greece  or  Rome,  not 


50  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

in  legend  or  story  of  Scandinavian  tribes,  is  to  be 
found  such  a  picture  of  the  dignity  and  glory  and 
honorable  service  of  woman. 

She  is  no  toy  and  no  dependent  idler.  She  has 
her  work  to  do,  and  glories  in  it.  She  counts  no 
honorable  industry  servile,  works  willingly  with 
her  hands.  She  is  no  narrow-minded  provincial. 
Her  vision  stretches  out  over  other  lands.  She 
knows  what  the  world  is  doing,  has  some  share 
in  it;  is  like  the  merchant  ships,  and  brings  food 
both  for  mind  and  body  from  afar.  She  is  not 
cottoned  or  cozened  in  the  bed  of  idleness,  but 
rises  betimes  for  her  work ;  never  counts  execu- 
tive ability  unwomanly ;  is  a  wise  and  efficient 
mistress  of  maidens.  She  has  no  notion  that  in- 
validism  is  interesting,  that  to  be  attractive  she 
must  be  pale  and  bloodless.  She  girdeth  her  loins 
with  strength,  and  her  arms  are  strong.  Her 
charity  begins  at  home,  but  does  not  end  there. 
Her  sympathies  reach  out  beyond  her  husband  and 
her  children.  She  is  a  wise  almoner  of  charity,  and 
not  through  contribution-boxes  and  charitable  or- 
ganizations only.  She  does  not  shun  contact  with 
the  lowly  and  the  unfortunate.  She  stretches  out 
her  hand  to  the  poor  and  the  needy.  She  has  not 
the  notion  that  simplicity  and  ugliness  are  synony- 
mous, that  beauty  in  dress  and  furniture  is  sinful. 
She  is  not  blind  to  the  lessons  of  nature,  which 


THE  HEBREW  IDEAL  OF  THE  FAMILY    51 

clothes  this  world  in  a  great  glory  of  form  and  color. 
Her  household  are  clothed  with  scarlet,  and  her  own 
clothing  is  fine  linen  and  purple.  She  takes  thought 
for  the  morrow,  and  therefore  does  not  take  anx- 
iety for  it.  Because  she  is  forethoughted  she  can 
laugh  at  the  time  to  come.  She  does  not  con- 
found innocence  and  ignorance,  does  not  think 
it  unwomanly  to  be  well  educated ;  she  openeth 
her  mouth  with  wisdom.  Nor  does  she  think  to 
show  her  wisdom  by  the  sharpness  of  her  tongue. 
Nor  is  she  a  gossip-monger.  In  her  tongue  is  the 
law  of  kindness.  Her  personal  ambitions  run  not 
beyond  her  household.  She  has  no  longing  for 
public  place  and  public  service.  She  seeks  her 
coronation  within  the  walls  of  her  home,  happy 
if  her  children  rise  up  and  call  her  blessed,  and 
her  husband  praises  her. 

This  ideal  of  creation,  of  marriage,  of  woman- 
hood, derived  from  the  Hebrew  people,  passed 
over  into  Europe  together  with  the  pagan  ideal 
derived  from  Imperial  Rome.  Wherever  pagan- 
ism dominated,  woman  was  dishonored  and  mar- 
riage was  reduced  to  a  commercial  partnership. 
Wherever  Christianity  dominated,  woman  was 
glorified  and  marriage  was  treated  as  a  sacrament. 
The  Church  honored  woman.  It  put  by  the  side 
of  the  Lord  himself  the  Virgin  Mother  who  bore 
him.  The  adoration  of  the  Virgin  was  one  of  the 


52  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

messages  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Wherever  that 
adoration  was  offered,  wherever  that  mother  and 
child  were  painted,  wherever  the  Ave  Maria  was 
played  or  sung,  there  womanhood  and  mother- 
hood were  exalted  and  adored.  With  this  ideal  of 
womanhood  there  went  an  ideal  of  marriage  as 
a  sacred  sacrament  binding  husband  and  wife  to- 
gether in  an  indissoluble  bond.  And  wherever 
these  two  went,  there  went  also  the  idea  of  com- 
plete comradeship ;  for  these  three  Hebrew  ideals 
are  really  one  in  three,  a  sacred  trinity  of  love : 
man  and  woman  created  one;  man  and  woman 
created  to  be  comrades ;  and  man  and  woman 
united  by  marriage  in  an  indissoluble  bond. 

For  it  is  not  merely  the  husbands  that  are  to 
be  comrades.  The  comradeship  may  be  between 
husband  and  wife,  or  between  brother  and  sister, 
or  between  father  and  daughter,  or  between  friend 
and  friend.  It  is  man  and  woman  who  are  made 
in  the  image  of  God ;  it  is  man  and  woman  who 
are  united  in  a  sacred  fellowship.  There  is  no 
space  here  in  which  adequately  to  illustrate  this 
comradeship  which  the  Hebrew  ideal  puts  before 
us.  Life  is  the  best  interpreter  of  the  Bible.  From 
the  book  of  life  I  select  one  single  picture  of  this 
comradeship  between  brother  and  sister.  Much 
has  been  made  of  what  Charles  Lamb  did  for 
Mary  Lamb,  and  we  have  sometimes  wondered 


THE  HEBREW  IDEAL  OF  THE  FAMILY    53 

at  the  patience  of  the  brother  in  bearing  with  his 
ofttimes  crazy  sister.  It  came  to  me  somewhat  as 
a  surprise  when  a  friend  called  my  attention  to 
Charles  Lamb's  testimony  of  what  that  sister  had 
been  to  him :  — 

I  have  every  reason  to  suppose  that  this  illness, 
like  all  the  former  ones,  will  be  but  temporary,  but  I 
cannot  feel  it  so.  Meanwhile  she  is  dead  to  me,  and  I 
miss  a  prop.  All  my  strength  is  gone,  and  I  am  like  a 
fool,  bereft  of  her  co-operation.  I  dare  not  think  lest 
I  should  think  wrong,  so  used  am  I  to  look  up  to  her  in 
the  least  as  in  the  biggest  perplexity.  To  say  all  that 
I  know  of  her  would  be  more  than  I  think  anybody 
could  believe  or  even  understand ;  and  when  I  hope 
to  have  her  well  again  with  me,  it  would  be  sinning 
against  her  feelings  to  go  about  to  praise  her,  for  I 
can  conceal  nothing  I  do  from  her.  She  is  older,  wiser, 
better  than  I,  and  all  my  wretched  imperfections  I 
cover  to  myself,  by  resolutely  thinking  on  her  good- 
ness. She  would  share  life,  death,  heaven  and  hell 
with  me.  She  lives  but  for  me.  I  know  I  have  been 
wasting  and  teasing  her  life  for  five  years  incessantly 
with  my  cursed  drinking  and  ways  of  going  on.  But 
even  in  this  upbraiding  of  myself  I  am  offending 
against  her,  for  I  know  that  she  has  clung  to  me  for 
better,  for  worse ;  and  if  the  balance  has  been  against 
her  hitherto,  it  was  a  noble  trade.1 

1  Letter  written  to  Dorothy  Wordsworth  by  Charles  Lamb 
when  Mary  Lamb  was  in  the  asylum,  during  one  of  her  attacks 
of  insanity,  June  14,  1805.  Letters  of  Charles  Lamb,  edited  by  E. 
V.  Lucas;  letter  133. 


54  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

Many  a  brother,  many  a  father,  many  a  hus- 
band who  has  not  the  pen  of  Charles  Lamb  has 
had  his  experience,  and  bears  silent  witness  to  the 
service  which  has  been  rendered  to  him  by  the 
inspiring  presence  of  a  sister,  a  daughter,  or  a 
wife. 

Thus  in  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury there  were  in  Europe  these  two  contrasted 
streams  of  influence,  one  coming  from  paganism 
through  Imperial  Rome,  the  other  coming  from 
the  Hebrew  race  through  the  Christian  Church. 
Both  were  imported  into  America,  the  pagan  idea 
from  deistical  France,  the  Christian  idea  from 
Puritan  England.  Rousseau's  interpretation  of 
the  pagan  ideal  I  quoted  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ter. J.  R.  Green  has  well  interpreted  the  Puritan 
ideal :  — 

Home,  as  we  conceive  it  now,  was  the  creation  of 
the  Puritan.  Wife  and  child  rose  from  mere  depend- 
ents on  the  will  of  husband  or  father,  as  husband  and 
father  saw  in  them  saints  like  himself,  souls  hallowed 
by  the  touch  of  a  divine  Spirit  and  called  with  a  di- 
vine calling  like  his  own.  The  sense  of  spiritual  fel- 
lowship gave  a  new  tenderness  and  refinement  to  the 
common  family  affections.  "  He  was  as  kind  a  father," 
says  a  Puritan  wife  of  her  husband,  "  as  dear  a  brother, 
as  good  a  master,  as  faithful  a  friend  as  the  world 
had."  The  willful  and  lawless  passion  of  the  Renas- 
cence made  way  for  a  manly  purity.  Neither  in  youth 


THE  HEBREW  IDEAL  OF  THE  FAMILY    65 

nor  riper  years  could  the  most  fair  or  enticing  woman 
draw  him  into  unnecessary  familiarity  or  dalliance. 
Wise  and  virtuous  women  he  loved,  and  delighted  in 
all  pure  and  holy  and  unblamable  conversation  with 
them,  but  so  as  never  to  excite  scandal  nor  temptation.1 

It  is  to  this  Hebraic,  Christian,  Puritan  influ- 
ence we  owe  the  modern  idea  of  woman's  educa- 
tion ;  that  she  is  to  be  educated,  not  as  Rousseau 
had  said,  to  make  the  lives  of  men  agreeable  and 
pleasant,  but  for  God  and  for  herself.  In  1819 
Miss  Willard  opened  what  I  believe  was  the  first 
school  for  the  really  higher  education  of  women 
in  this i country.  In  1837  Mount  Holyoke  fol- 
lowed under  Mary  Lyon.  In  1861  Vassar  College 
was  founded ;  then,  following,  Smith  and  Welles- 
ley  and  Bryn  Mawr.2  All  these  were  in  the  con- 
ception and  ideal  of  their  founders  distinctly 
Christian  institutions.  Meanwhile  Western  col- 
leges were  opening  their  doors  to  women,  and 
secondary  schools  for  girls  enlarged  their  curri- 
cula and  raised  their  standards,  until  to-day,  after 
a  century  of  education,  it  may  fairly  be  said  that 
educational  facilities  for  woman  in  this  country 
are,  considering  the  length  of  time  they  have 
been  established,  approximately  as  good  as  the 

1  J.  R.  Green,  History  of  England,  vol.  iii,  p.  19. 
1  This  of  coarse  does  not  aim  to  be  a  complete  list  of  colleges 
and  collegiate  institutions. 


56  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

educational  facilities  for  man.  The  same  methods 
of  study  are  open  to  her  as  to  her  brother  in  the 
preparatory  schools.  She  is  admitted  to  the  same 
high  schools,  and  to  a  large  extent  the  same 
higher  education  is  furnished  to  both  in  the  col- 
leges. 

The  new  education  has  changed  the  old  pagan- 
ism, but  has  not  converted  it.  The  struggle  be- 
tween the  pagan  and  the  Christian  conceptions 
of  woman,  marriage,  and  the  family  continues  on 
our  soil,  though  in  a  new  form.  Paganism  no 
longer  affirms  that  woman  was  made  for  man,  or 
that  she  is  to  be  educated  to  make  life  agreeable 
and  pleasant  for  him,  and  that  she  is  to  be  his 
servant  or  his  toy.  But  loud  voices  are  calling 
on  her  to  become  his  competitor ;  to  join  in  the 
struggle  of  life,  not  with  him,  but  against  him. 
A  little  child  of  my  acquaintance,  who  had  heard, 
more  intelligently  than  any  one  had  imagined, 
the  woman  question  discussed  in  the  family  circle, 
asked  his  governess  one  day  when  they  were 
gathering  wild  flowers,  whether  she  preferred 
Dutchman's  breeches  or  ladies'  slippers.  That  is 
the  Woman  Question  in  a  sentence.  Does  she 
wish  to  be  a  woman  or  a  modified  man? 

The  new  paganism  assures  woman  that  the 
difference  of  sex  is  but  an  incident  in  life ;  that, 
with  the  same  education  as  man,  she  has  become 


THE  HEBREW  IDEAL  OF  THE  FAMILY    57 

or  is  becoming  the  same  kind  of  being,  en- 
dowed with  the  same  characteristics,  called  to  the 
same  service,  intended  to  fulfill  the  same  social 
function ;  that  there  is  no  more  difference  between 
man  and  woman  than  there  is  between  individuals 
in  either  sex ;  that  she  is  to  be  not  man's  comple- 
ment but  his  duplicate,  not  his  comrade  but  his 
competitor,  in  the  market-place,  the  factory,  the 
court-room,  and  on  the  hustings ;  that  as  man  is, 
woman  is  —  his  toil  her  toil,  his  task  her  task,  his 
place  her  place ;  that  marriage  is  only  a  partner- 
ship between  the  two,  to  be  continued  while  it 
proves  mutually  agreeable;  that  children  are  a 
painful  inconvenience,  to  be  avoided  if  possible, 
and,  when  inevitable,  discarded  as  soon  as  may 
be.  This  is  what  pagan  democracy  demands  of 
woman  and  for  woman. 

Hebraic,  Puritan,  Christian  "democracy,  in  its 
interpretation  of  life  and  in  its  demands  both  on 
woman  and  for  woman,  is  the  antithesis  of  the 
modern  paganism.  There  is  no  accident  of  sex. 
Man  and  woman  are  not  cast  in  the  same  mould, 
created  for  the  same  function,  or  called  to  the 
same  service.  They  are  created  to  be  comrades, 
not  competitors ;  for  cooperation,  not  for  rivalry. 
She  is  not  made  for  him  more  than  he  is  made  for 
her ;  she  is  not  to  be  educated  for  him  more  than 
he  is  to  be  educated  for  her.  They  are  made  for 


58  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

each  other.  Marriage  is  not  a  partnership ;  it  is 
not  a  civil  contract ;  it  is  a  divine  order ;  indis- 
soluble save  for  the  one  disloyalty  which  does  by 
necessity  destroy  the  family.  The  home  is  the 
basic  organization  on  which  both  Church  and  State 
are  founded,  for  which  both  Church  and  State 
exist.  The  rearing  and  training  of  children  is 
the  end  of  life,  which  alone  gives  it  significance. 
To  protect  from  enemies  while  this  work  of  rear- 
ing and  training  children  is  carried  on  is  the  func- 
tion of  government.  To  provide  food  and  shel- 
ter for  the  family  while  this  rearing  and  training 
of  children  is  carried  on  is  the  function  of  the 
material  industries.  To  supplement  the  family  in 
this  rearing  and  training  of  children  is  the  func- 
tion of  the  school  and  the  Church.  In  this  work 
of  rearing  and  training  children  woman  is  supreme, 
made  so  by  her  divine  equipment,  and  in  it  pro- 
tected and  provided  by  her  mate.  Neither  master 
and  servant  nor  competitors  and  rivals,  but  com- 
rades, neither  independent  of  the  other,  neither 
complete  without  the  other,  each  made  for  the 
other,  are  man  and  woman  in  the  world's  great 
work,  which  is  the  creation  of  children  of  God. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  EVOLUTION  OF  EDUCATION 

THERE  are  two  conceptions  of  education  put  in 
sharp  contrast  by  two  interesting  fables,  similar 
in  form,  contrasted  in  the  lessons  which  they 
teach — the  fable  of  the  colts,  by  Pestalozzi ;  the 
fable  of  the  dogs,  by  Rousseau. 

The  Two  Colts.  Two  colts  as  like  as  two  eggs  fell 
into  different  hands.  One  was  bought  by  a  peasant 
whose  only  thought  was  to  harness  it  to  his  plough  as 
soon  as  possible ;  this  one  turned  out  a  bad  horse.  The 
other  fell  to  the  lot  of  a  man  who  by  looking  after  it 
well  and  training  it  carefully  made  a  noble  steed  of 
it,  strong  and  mettlesome.  Fathers  and  mothers,  if 
your  children's  faculties  are  not  carefully  trained  and 
directed  right,  they  will  become  not  only  useless,  but 
hurtful ;  and  the  greater  the  faculties,  the  greater  the 
danger. 

The  Two  Dogs.  Just  look  at  those  two  dogs ;  they 
are  of  the  same  litter,  they  have  been  brought  up  and 
treated  precisely  alike,  they  have  never  been  sepa- 
rated ;  and  yet  one  of  them  is  sharp,  lively,  affection- 
ate, and  very  intelligent ;  the  other  is  dull,  lumpish, 
surly,  and  nobody  could  ever  teach  him  anything. 
Simply  a  difference  of  temperament  has  produced  in 


60  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

them  a  difference  of  character,  just  as  a  simple  differ- 
ence of  our  interior  organization  produces  in  us  a 
difference  of  mind. 

To  Pestalozzi  the  mind  of  a  child  is  like  the 
plastic  clay  which  the  teacher  fashions ;  to  Rous- 
seau, like  the  stone  image,  the  teacher  can  only 
polish  it  a  little.  To  Pestalozzi  education  is  the 
whole  process  of  human  development;  to  Rous- 
seau Nature  is  the  mother  of  us  all,  and  the  less 
we  interfere  with  her  processes  the  better.  Pesta- 
lozzi would  have  education  begin  at  the  cradle ; 
Rousseau  would  have  what  education  there  is 
begin  at  twelve  years  of  age. 

I  hold  with  Pestalozzi  that  education  fashions 
and  shapes  the  growing  child ;  it  cannot  begin  too 
soon.  Education  is  simply  directed  growth,  and 
the  education  should  begin  when  the  growth  be- 
gins. The  mind  of  a  child  is  like  a  garden  bed. 
There  are  in  it  seeds  of  flowers  and  seeds  of  weeds. 
The  teacher  cannot  change  the  weeds  to  flowers, 
but  the  teacher  can  eradicate  the  weeds  and  de- 
velop the  flowers.  This  is  education.  The  teacher 
puts  the  child  on  a  path  and  knows  not  where  it 
will  lead ;  only  this,  that  the  path  leads  up  into 
the  clouds  or  down  into  a  dark  and  bottomless 


The  weakest  of  all  animals  is  the  infant,  know- 
ing nothing,  able  to  do  nothing,  absolutely  de- 


THE  EVOLUTION  OF  EDUCATION    61 

pendent  for  his  very  existence  on  the  nursing 
mother.  At  the  other  extreme  of  life,  developed 
by  the  processes  of  a  life  education,  stands  Glad- 
stone shaping  the  nation's  destinies,  or  Browning 
singing  songs  the  ages  will  listen  to,  or  Edison 
gathering  the  lightning  and  making  it  light  our 
houses  and  run  our  trolley-cars.  The  difference 
between  this  little,  insignificant,  useless  creature 
in  the  cradle  and  this  great  statesman,  this  great 
poet,  this  great  inventor,  is  education. 

There  seems  to  me  nothing  so  great  as  this 
work  of  a  teacher,  whether  we  call  this  teacher 
mother,  or  father,  or  instructor,  or  pastor.  To 
take  a  character  and  mould  and  make  it  what 
the  builder  will  —  there  is  nothing  greater  than 
that.  It  is  a  great  thing  to  paint  a  wonderful 
portrait  that,  when  she  whom  I  loved  is  gone, 
will  speak  to  me  with  eloquent  lips  and  look  at 
me  with  gleaming  eyes ;  but  it  is  a  greater  thing 
to  make  the  character  of  which  that  is  but  a 
portrait.  It  is  a  great  thing  to  be  a  poet  and  por- 
tray with  burning  words  a  living  citizen ;  but  it 
is  a  greater  thing  to  create  the  living  citizen.  It 
is  a  great  thing  to  be  a  great  statesman,  holding 
the  helm  of  state  and  guiding  it  on  its  perplexed 
course;  but  it  is  a  greater  thing  to  make  the 
statesman,  and  the  nation  which  he  is  guiding. 
Says  Erasmus :  — 


62  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

Would  it  not  be  a  horror  to  look  upon  a  human 
soul  clad  in  the  form  of  a  beast,  as  Circe  is  fabled  to 
have  done  by  her  spells  ?  But  is  it  not  worse  that  a 
father  should  see  his  own  image  slowly  but  surely 
becoming  the  dwelling-place  of  a  brute's  nature? 
It  is  said  a  bear's  cub  is  at  birth  but  an  ill-formed 
lump,  which  by  a  long  process  of  licking  is  brought 
into  shape.  Nature,  in  giving  you  a  son,  presents 
you,  let  us  say,  a  rude,  unformed  creature,  which 
it  is  your  part  to  fashion  so  that  it  may  become  in- 
deed a  man.  If  this  fashioning  be  neglected,  you  have 
but  an  animal  still ;  if  it  be  contrived  earnestly  and 
wisely,  you  have,  I  had  almost  said,  what  may  prove 
a  being  not  far  from  a  God. 

If  it  is  a  great  work  for  mothers  to  do  this  for 
a  few  children,  or  teachers  to  do  this  for  a  few 
more  children,  what  a  wonderful  work  it  is  for  a 
nation  to  do  this  for  itself ! 

And  that  is  what  the  American  nation  is 
doing.  We  are  not  only  a  self-governing  people : 
we  are  what  is  far  more  important,  a  self-educat- 
ing people.  We  are  dependent  for  our  education, 
not  upon  a  few  learned  or  a  few  wise  men,  save 
as  we  select  the  learned  and  the  wise :  we  are  de- 
pendent on  ourselves.  We  fashion  our  schools, 
build  our  schoolhouses,  select  our  curriculum, 
determine  our  educative  processes.  A  nation  of 
eighty  millions  of  people  is  educating  itself. 
What  kind  of  education  are  we  giving  ourselves  ? 


THE  EVOLUTION  OF  EDUCATION    63 

What  is  the  result  of  our  self-development  ?  An 
orator,  boasting  of  his  abilities  in  a  public  speech, 
said,  "  Fellow-citizens,  I  am  glad  to  say  I  am  a 
self-made  man."  An  auditor  in  the  distance 
called  out,  "  You  have  taken  off  your  Creator  a 
very  heavy  responsibility."  We  are  a  self-made 
nation.  What  kind  of  a  nation  are  we  making? 

How  came  we  to  enter  on  this  so  audacious 
experiment?  To  answer  that  question,  we  must 
trace  rapidly,  and  far  too  briefly,  the  history  of 
the  growth  of  education. 

Professor  Dicey  says  that  not  until  1832  did 
England  recognize  any  national  responsibility  for 
education,  or  even  impose  any  legal  obligation 
upon  parents  to  educate  their  own  children. 
1832!  This  progressive  Anglo-Saxon  race,  to 
which  many  of  us  are  proud  to  belong,  is,  then, 
from  twenty -five  hundred  to  three  thousand 
years  behind  the  Hebrew  race;  for  the  Hebrew 
Commonwealth  enacted,  somewhere  between  six 
hundred  and  a  thousand  years  before  Christ 
(scholars  differ  as  to  the  date,  and  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  discuss  the  question  here),  a  law  which 
required  parents  to  teach  their  children.  Whether 
that  law  was  enforced  by  legal  penalties  I  do  not 
know,  but  it  was  law ;  and  that  law  further  pro- 
vided for  certain  great  gatherings  from  time  to 
time,  like  our  camp-meetings  or  our  Chautauqua 


64  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

assemblies,  to  which  the  professional  teachers  of 
the  nation  should  come,  and  from  platforms  and 
pulpits  should  teach  the  men  and  women  and  chil- 
dren. For  woman's  education  does  not  date  from 
the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  but  from 
a  thousand  years  before  Christ.  And  the  law,  a 
little  later,  provided  for  itinerant  teachers  who 
should  go  from  village  to  village,  teaching  the 
people  by  a  kind  of  itinerant  school-mastership. 
Out  of  this  primitive  system  of  education,  — 
very  primitive  it  certainly  was,  but  adapted  to  a 
primitive  condition,  —  there  had  grown  by  the 
time  of  Christ  a  Jewish  system  under  which  there 
was  a  synagogue  school  connected  with  every 
synagogue,  and  a  university  of  considerable  pro- 
portions connected  with  the  great  Temple  at  Je- 
rusalem. It  was  to  that  university  at  the  Temple 
at  Jerusalem  that  Jesus  was  drawn  when  he  was 
a  boy  only  twelve  years  of  age,  not  to  teach  the 
doctors,  but  to  learn  from  the  rabbis  what  he 
could  not  learn  from  -the  less  instructed  rabbi  of 
the  synagogue  in  his  village  home.  Up  to  this 
time  there  had  been  nowhere  else  in  the  world, 
except  possibly  China,  any  system  of  education 
provided  by  either  State  or  Church.  There  were 
schools  in  Greece  and  later  in  Rome,  and  the 
philosophers  of  Greece  and  Rome  urged  on  par- 
ents the  duty  of  education ;  and  there  were  well- 


THE  EVOLUTION  OF  EDUCATION    65 

educated  men  in  Greece  and  in  Rome.  But  the 
State  as  a  state  —  with  the  possible  exception  of 
Sparta  for  a  few  short  years  —  and  the  pagan 
Church  as  a  church  made  no  provision  for  popu- 
lar education.  The  schools  were  subsidiary  to  the 
home;  they  were  aids  to  the  parents.  If  the 
parents  had  the  inclination  and  the  means,  they 
sent  their  children  to  school  or  had  teachers  to 
teach  them  at  home ;  if  the  parents  lacked  either 
the  inclination  or  the  means,  the  children  were 
left  to  grow  up  untaught;  and,  in  point  of  fact, 
in  ancient  Rome  the  great  majority  of  the  chil- 
dren were  so  left  to  grow  up  untaught. 

The  Hebrew  religion,  transformed,  developed, 
—  to  use  Jesus'  own  words,  fulfilled, — passed 
over  into  Europe,  and  carried  with  it  the  syna- 
gogue school,  transformed  into  a  Christian 
school.  It  is  difficult  for  us  to  state  exactly  what 
happened  in  the  first  two  or  three  centuries  of 
the  Christian  era ;  history,  if  not  absolutely  silent, 
speaks  in  ambiguous  terms.  But  we  know  that 
at  the  close  of  the  third  century  there  were 
Christian  schools  connected  with  most  of  the 
Christian  churches.  By  the  sixth  century  a  de- 
cree issued  by  one  of  the  great  Councils  called 
upon  the  Church  to  establish  such  schools  in 
connection  with  every  church ;  and  from  the 
sixth  century  down  to  the  sixteenth  there  f ol- 


66  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

lowed  decree  after  decree  and  edict  after  edict 
—  from  synod,  from  council,  and  from  popes  — 
urging  on  the  Church  the  duty  of  providing  ed- 
ucation for  the  people  by  the  establishment  of 
parochial  schools  for  the  primary  work,  and  of 
cathedral  schools  for  the  higher  work.  The  great 
universities  of  to-day  are  the  children  of  these 
early  Church  schools.  Cambridge  and  Oxford, 
for  example,  are  the  outgrowth  of  schools  in  the 
same  places,  and  to  a  considerable  extent  in  the 
same  buildings,  originally  established  and  main- 
tained by  the  Koman  Catholic  Church. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century  was 
born  the  great  democratic  movement.  It  had  two 
aspects:  the  Renaissance,  with  its  home  in  Italy; 
the  Reformation,  with  its  home  in  Germany. 
And  with  this  birth  of  the  democratic  spirit  there 
came  a  new  conception  of  education.  This  was 
partly  a  new  conception  of  its  breadth  and  ex- 
tent, but  it  was  largely  a  new  conception  of  the 
instrument  by  which  it  should  be  carried  on. 
Both  Erasmus,  the  prophet  of  the  Renaissance, 
and  Luther,  the  prophet  of  the  Reformation, 
insisted  upon  schools  organized,  supported,  and 
governed  by  the  State.  They  were  not  satisfied 
to  leave  education  in  the  hands  of  the  parents  or 
in  the  hands  of  the  Church ;  they  demanded  that 
the  State  should  undertake  the  work  of  popular 


THE  EVOLUTION  OF  EDUCATION         67 

education ;  that  it  should  become  a  national  ob- 
ligation. It  is  interesting  to  find  in  the  writings 
of  Erasmus  on  education  the  same  objections  re- 
ported which  are  repeated  to-day  in  the  twentieth 
century,  met  by  the  same  arguments  by  which 
they  are  met  to-day. 

You  say  [says  Erasmus]  that  you  have  no  time  to 
educate  your  children.  If  you  will  give  up  some  of 
your  foolish  pleasures,  if  you  will  give  up  some  of 
your  useless  avocations,  and  especially  if  you  will  de- 
vote less  time  to  your  senseless  social  functions,  you 
will  have  time  enough  to  educate  your  children.  You 
have  no  money.  No  money !  Why,  you  pay  less  for 
your  teachers  than  you  pay  for  your  cook.  [I  believe 
that  is  still  sometimes  true  in  New  York  City.]  You 
mothers  are  more  particular  to  dress  your  children 
than  to  educate  them.  You  are  anxious  for  their  hats 
and  their  dresses  that  they  should  appear  well.  If  you 
must  gratify  your  vanity  by  dressing  somebody,  buy  a 
monkey  and  dress  him.  You  say  that  education  im- 
pairs the  health.  I  should  certainly  always  advise 
moderation  in  the  amount  of  mental  exertion  de- 
manded, but  I  have  little  patience  with  critics  who 
only  become  anxious  about  the  youthful  constitution 
when  education  is  mooted,  but  who  are  indifferent  to 
the  far  more  certain  risks  of  overfeeding,  late  hours, 
and  unsuitable  dressing  in  the  classes  about  whom  I 
am  here  concerned.1 

1  W.  H.  Woodward,  Erasmus  Concerning  Education.  I  here 
summarize,  not  quoting  with  verbal  accuracy. 


68  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

That  would  not  be  a  bad  lesson  in  some  homes 
in  America.  Erasmus  laid  stress  on  the  taking  up 
of  education  by  the  State.  He  was  more  radical 
than  the  most  radical  of  advocates  of  State  edu- 
cation to-day.  Secular  education,  or  none  at  all, 
was  his  cry.  Luther  spoke  on  this  subject  with 
even  greater  f orcef  ulness :  — 

Since  we  are  all  required,  and  especially  the  magis- 
trates, above  all  other  things  to  educate  the  youth  who 
are  born  and  are  growing  up  among  us,  and  to  train 
them  up  in  the  way  of  virtue,  it  is  needful  that  we 
have  schools,  preachers,  and  pastors.  If  the  parents 
will  not  reform,  they  must  go  their  way  to  ruin ;  but 
if  the  young  are  neglected  and  left  without  education, 
it  is  the  fault  of  the  State,  and  the  effect  will  be  that 
the  country  will  swarm  with  vile  and  lawless  people, 
so  that  our  safety,  no  less  than  the  command  of  God, 
requireth  us  to  see  and  ward  off  this  evil.  [He  main- 
tains in  this  letter  that  government]  as  the  natural 
guardian  of  the  young  has  a  right  to  compel  the  peo- 
ple to  support  the  schools.  What  is  necessary  to  the 
well-being  of  a  state,  that  should  be  supplied  by  those 
who  enjoy  the  privileges  of  such  state.1 

Since  the  sixteenth  century  the  public  school, 
that  is,  the  school  supported  and  maintained  by, 
and  under  the  government  of,  the  political  organ- 
ization, has  been  the  constant  companion  and  the 

1  Letter  of  Martin  Luther  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  quoted 
in  Barnard's  German  Pedagogy,  p.  13. 


THE  EVOLUTION  OF  EDUCATION    69 

true  foundation  of  every  democratic  state.  The 
public  schools  of  Germany  date  from  the  days 
of  Luther.  Their  excellence  is  due  in  part  to  the 
fact  that  they  have  been  under  a  process  of  har- 
monious development  for  more  than  three  centu- 
ries. The  public  schools  passed  gradually  over 
into  other  countries,  which  gradually  became  demo- 
cratic. It  was  not  until  1870  that  the  State  made 
any  provision  for  public  education  in  England. 
It  was  not  until  1881  that  the  State  undertook 
compulsory  education  in  France. 

The  Puritans  brought  their  system  of  public 
education  with  them  as  the  foundation  of  their 
theocracy.  It  extended,  after  the  Civil  War,  into 
the  South,  and  has  now  gone  wherever  the  Amer- 
ican flag  has  gone.  One  of  the  most  inspiring 
surprises  which  the  visitor  to  Porto  Rico  sees  to- 
day as  he  travels  over  that  island  is  the  rural 
schoolhouse  in  every  village,  and  oftentimes  in 
spots  remote  from  any  town.  In  Porto  Rico,1  in 
Hawaii,  in  the  Philippines,  the  public  school  — 
that  is,  the  school  supported  and  carried  on  and 
maintained  by  the  State  —  has  followed,  accom- 
panied, been  the  foundation  of,  the  democratic 

1  The  latest  statistics  available  at  this  writing  show  in  Porto 
Rico :  schools,  2,040 ;  scholars,  87,236 ;  teachers,  1,736.  And 
when  our  troops  landed  in  Porto  Rico,  there  were  no  schools 
outside  a  few  of  the  larger  towns,  and  not  a  school  building  in 
the  island  which  had  been  erected  for  that  purpose. 


70  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

movement.  I  sat  one  night  recently  by  the  side 
of  Baron  Kikuchi,  the  head  of  the  Educational 
Department  of  Japan,  and  he  told  me  that  in  that 
country  ninety-eight  per  cent  of  the  children  were 
in  the  public  school.  I  said  to  him,  "  You  are  in 
advance  of  America."  I  wonder  how  long  it  will 
be  before  we  catch  up. 

Thus  there  have  developed  from  very  primitive 
beginnings  three  instruments  of  education, — the 
Home,  the  Church,  and  the  State.  How  the  edu- 
cation should  be  divided  between  these  three  is 
a  matter  of  hot  debate.  In  France  the  govern- 
ment has  recently  prohibited  the  Church  from 
doing  any  teaching.  In  Germany  the  State  does 
the  teaching,  but  in  some  parts  of  the  Empire 
the  Church  comes  in  after  hours  to  add  religious 
instruction.  In  England  the  Church  and  State 
combine  to  render  instruction,  the  Church  carry- 
ing on  some  schools,  the  State  others.  In  Amer- 
ica the  State  carries  on  the  schools,  but  the  Church 
is  perfectly  free  to  establish  and  maintain  schools 
by  its  own  action  and  under  its  own  direction,  if 
it  sees  fit  to  do  so. 

I  [believe  that  these  three  organizations,  the 
Home,  the  Church,  and  the  School,  should  com- 
bine in  education.  How  they  should  combine, 
and  what  education  they  should  furnish,  I  shall 
consider  in  a  succeeding  chapter. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE   HOME,    THE   CHURCH,   THE   SCHOOL 

EDUCATION  begins  at  the  cradle.  The  first  edu- 
cator is  the  mother.  The  first  lesson  to  be  taught 
is  obedience.  This  is  the  first  lesson  which  must 
be  learned  by  a  self-governing  member  of  a  self- 
governing  community. 

We  are  born  into  a  world  of  law.  We  cannot 
do  as  we  please.  We  are  not  at  liberty,  if  liberty 
means  exemption  from  law.  If  a  man  thinks  he 
has  liberty  to  fly,  and  jumps  off  the  roof  of  the 
house,  he  finds  when  he  reaches  the  sidewalk 
that  he  has  not  even  liberty  to  walk,  unless  first 
he  has  learned  the  laws  of  aerial  navigation  and 
flies  in  accordance  with  them.  Obedience  to  law 
is  the  foundation  of  all  civilization,  material,  in- 
tellectual, social,  spiritual.  The  first  thing  the 
child  has  to  learn  is  that  there  are  other  wills  su- 
perior to  his  will,  and  laws  to  which  he  must  him- 
self be  obedient.  An  indulgent  mother  is  a  cruel 
mother.  She  is  sending  out  her  child  unprepared 
for  the  restraints  of  law,  which  will  be  enforced 
by  seemingly  cruel  penalties.  If  she  were  wise 
and  strong,  she  would  temper  law  to  the  child's 


72  THE   SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

capacity.  We  try  to  put  up  a  gate  at  Ellis  Is- 
land to  keep  the  Anarchists  out ;  we  ought  to 
put  it  up  in  our  nurseries.  There  our  children 
are  being  taught  lawlessness ;  taught  that  they 
may  obey  or  not  obey,  as  they  will ;  there  laws 
are  given  to  them,  and  then,  when  disobeyed, 
left  unenforced.  The  babe  in  the  cradle  readily 
understands  whether  or  not  he  must  obey.  The 
sooner  he  learns  that  he  must,  the  sooner  he  is 
fitted  for  a  self-governing  member  of  a  self- 
governing  community,  the  sooner  he  is  fitted  for 
a  happy  life  in  the  world. 

It  is  not  enough,  however,  that  he  obeys  laws 
that  are  interpreted  to  him  by  father  or  mother ; 
if  he  is  to  be  a  self-governing  member  of  a  self- 
governing  community,  he  must  learn  how  to 
understand  laws  that  are  not  written  and  not  in- 
terpreted ;  he  must  know  how  to  read  the  invisi- 
ble laws  written  in  the  human  constitution,  and 
yield  them,  not  a  reluctant  obedience  because 
they  are  enforced,  but  a  glad  and  willing  obedi- 
ence because  he  recognizes  their  value.  What 
are  the  bonds  which  bind  Democracy  together  ? 
Not  armies,  or  navies,  or  policemen.  There  are 
two  bonds :  truth  and  justice.  Truth  gives  us 
mutual  confidence  in  one  another  in  the  inter- 
communication of  ideas;  justice  gives  us  mutual 
confidence  in  one  another  in  the  actual  transac- 


THE  HOME,  THE  CHURCH,  THE  SCHOOL  73 

tions  of  life.  Take  out  either  and  the  community 
drops  to  pieces.  These  are  the  invisible  hoops 
that  hold  the  barrel  together. 

Any  kind  of  a  person,  says  E.  S.  Martin,  will 
do  for  a  parent  —  except  a  liar.  I  am  afraid  that 
is  a  large  exception.  I  do  not  think  I  am  a  pes- 
simist ;  but  I  do  verily  believe  that  more  lies  are 
told  by  mothers,  fathers,  and  nurses  to  children 
than  all  the  rest  of  the  lies  put  together.  We  lie 
to  them  with  false  threats ;  we  lie  to  them  with 
false  promises ;  we  lie  to  them  with  false  stories ; 
we  teach  them  by  our  practice  that  a  child  has 
not  a  right  to  truth ;  and  then  we  wonder  that 
they  learn  the  lesson.  Nor  do  I  think  that 
mothers  are  generally  very  good  in  teaching  jus- 
tice. They  teach  kindness,  gentleness,  considera- 
tion, generosity  —  but  not  justice.  Among  the 
first  lessons  our  children  ought  to  learn  in  the 
home  are  the  elemental  rights  of  property  and 
rights  of  person.  Every  child  is  born  a  robber. 
Put  two  babies  on  the  floor,  and  give  one  of 
them  a  rattle,  and  see  the  other  crawl  to  his  com- 
panion, and,  if  he  is  strong  enough,  wrest  the 
rattle  away  from  his  companion.  He  is  a  high- 
way robber.  It  is  not  his  fault ;  he  has  not  yet 
learned  the  rights  of  property.  The  little  child 
will  romance,  and  be  rebuked  for  falsehood.  He 
has  not  learned  the  difference  between  falsehood 


74  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

and  fiction,  and  it  is  to  be  taught  him.  He  does 
not  know  the  difference  between  a  fairy  tale  and 
a  lie.  The  difference  is  so  subtle  that  even  grown 
folks  do  not  seem  always  to  understand  it.  Truth 
and  justice — these  are  to  be  taught  in  the  nur- 
sery before  the  child  has  gone  out  to  the  larger 
life  of  the  schools. 

Taught?  Yes!  but  teaching  is  not  enough; 
trained.  There  are  many  people,  I  think,  who 
imagine  that  the  Bible  says,  "  Govern  a  child  in 
the  way  he  should  go,  and  when  he  is  old  he  will 
not  depart  from  it " ;  and  they  do  govern  a  child 
in  the  way  he  should  go,  and  as  soon  as  he  es- 
capes from  the  authority  he  does  depart  from  it. 
What  the  Bible  says  is,  "  Train  up  a  child  in  the 
way  he  should  go,"  and  neither  governing  nor 
teaching  is  the  same  as  training.  Training  is  the 
production  of  habit.  Actions  oft  repeated  be- 
come a  habit;  habit  long  continued  becomes  a 
second  nature.  When  you  have  trained  your 
child  in  habits  of  justice  and  of  truth,  when  you 
have  formed  in  him  the  habit  of  telling  the  truth 
and  the  habit  of  acting  justly,  he  will  not  depart 
from  them,  because  he  cannot  depart  from  him- 
self. 

The  father  and  the  mother  have  opportunities 
of  training  that  the  teacher  does  not  have,  if  the 
father  and  mother  are  willing  to  take  the  time 


THE  HOME,  THE  CHURCH,  THE  SCHOOL    75 

and  the  trouble  and  the  patience,  and,  ahove  all, 
are  the  kind  of  parents  they  ought  to  be.  For 
training  does  not  come  chiefly  through  lectures 
or  exhortations,  or  laws  enforced  by  penalty.  It 
comes  chiefly  through  the  atmosphere  of  the 
home  and  through  the  example  of  the  parents. 
If  you  want  your  child  to  love  the  truth,  love  it 
yourself;  if  you  want  your  child  to  love  justice 
and  purity  and  simplicity  and  honesty  and  cour- 
age, love  them  yourself.  You  cannot  by  your 
teaching  give  your  child  that  which  you  do  not 
possess.  A  profane  man  cannot  teach  a  boy  not 
to  be  profane.  A  smoking  father  cannot  teach  a 
boy  not  to  smoke.  "A  drinking  man  cannot  teach 
a  boy  not  to  drink.  The  boy  will  walk  in  his 
father's  footsteps,  and  the  more  he  honors  his 
father  the  more  likely  he  is  to  walk  in  those 
footsteps. 

I  do  not  attempt  to  tell  what  is  the  education 
which  parents  should  give.  I  only  attempt  to 
point  out  certain  fundamental  lessons  necessary 
to  a  democracy  that  is  educating  itself  to  be 
a  self-governing  democracy,  and  in  the  family 
these  three  things  are  essential :  Training  by 
example  as  well  as  by  precept  in  justice,  truth- 
fulness, and  obedience. 

What  is  the  specific  contribution  which  the 


76  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

Church  should  make  to  the  education  of  the 
child  ?  I  state  my  view  of  the  difference  in  func- 
tion between  the  Church  and  the  State  in  the 
words  of  an  eminent  Roman  Catholic  divine,  not 
because  I  think  they  represent  the  dominant 
sentiment  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  but  be- 
cause they  represent  a  sentiment  very  widely  en- 
tertained in  that  Church,  and  I  choose  them  that 
they  may  appear  to  be,  as  I  think  they  truly  are, 
neither  distinctively  Protestant  nor  Roman  Catho- 
lic:— 

The  Church  has  received  from  her  Divine  Founder 
the  mission  to  teach  the  supernatural  truths.  .  .  .  But 
the  Church  has  not  received  the  mission  to  make 
known  the  human  sciences,  she  has  not  been  estab- 
lished for  the  progress  of  nations  in  the  arts  and  sci- 
ences, no  more  than  to  render  them  powerful  and 
wealthy.  .  .  .  Her  duty  of  teaching  human  sciences 
is  only  indirect  —  a  work  of  charity  or  of  necessity : 
of  charity  when  they  are  not  sufficiently  taught  by 
others  who  have  that  duty;  of  necessity  when  they 
are  badly  taught,  that  is,  taught  in  a  sense  opposed 
to  supernatural  truth  and  morality.  This  is  why  the 
missionary,  setting  foot  in  a  savage  land,  though  he 
begins  with  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  very  soon 
establishes  schools.  .  .  .  There  are  men  who  seem  to 
assert  that  the  Church  has  received  the  mission  to 
teach  human  as  well  as  divine  science.  They  give 
to  the  words  of  Christ,  Euntes  docete  (go  and  teach), 
an  indefinite  interpretation.  But  such  an  interpreta- 


THE  HOME,  THE  CHURCH,  THE  SCHOOL    77 

tion  is  evidently  false.  .  .  .  The  question  here  is  not 
of  the  authority  of  the  State  over  the  teaching  of  re- 
ligion and  over  theological  schools.  It  is  clear  that 
the  State  has  no  jurisdiction  in  that  sphere.  .  .  .  We 
affirm  that  the  State  has  authority  over  education. 
This  authority  is  included  in  that  general  authority 
with  which  the  State  is  invested  for  promoting  the 
common  good,  for  guaranteeing  to  each  man  his  rights, 
for  preventing  abuses.  .  .  .  The  State  has  the  right 
to  prevent  the  unworthy  and  the  incapable  from  as- 
suming the  role  of  educators.  .  .  .  The  State  has  au- 
thority to  see  to  it  that  parents  fulfill  their  duty  of 
educating  their  children,  to  compel  them,  if  need  be, 
and  to  substitute  itself  for  them  in  the  fulfillment 
of  this  duty  in  certain  cases.  ...  If  the  State  may 
coerce  parents  who  neglect  the  education  of  their 
children,  so  also  may  it  determine  a  minimum  of  in- 
struction and  make  it  obligatory.  ...  If  the  State 
may  exact  on  the  part  of  the  teachers  evidences  of  ca- 
pability, on  the  part  of  children  a  minimum  of  instruc- 
tion, if  it  may  punish  negligent  parents,  it  follows  that 
it  may  also  prescribe  the  teaching  of  this  or  that 
branch,  the  knowledge  of  which,  considering  the  cir- 
cumstances, is  deemed  necessary  to  the  majority  of  the 
citizens.  No  more  difficulty  in  the  one  case  than  in  the 
other.  Moreover,  it  is  not  needed  that  we  should  re- 
mark that  the  State  has  over  all  schools  the  authority 
of  inspection  as  to  hygiene  and  public  morality.1 

I  wish  to  supplement  that  statement  with  one 

1  From  a  pamphlet  of  Dr.  Bouquillon,  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
University  of  Washington,  D.  C.,  1893.  Now  out  of  print. 


78  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

other.  The  State  has  no  moral  right  to  prohibit 
the  parents  from  teaching,  or  the  Church  from 
teaching.  If  in  France,  as  is  alleged,  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  in  its  schools  is  giving  its  chil- 
dren teaching  which  is  undermining  the  author- 
ity of  the  Republic,  the  State  has  a  right,  and 
that  right  is  recognized  by  this  extract,  to  pro- 
hibit such  teaching ;  but  it  has  no  moral  right 
to  issue  a  general  law  that  the  Church  shall  do 
no  teaching  except  as  directed  and  controlled  by 
parties  who  are  inimical  to  the  Church. 

What  is  the  Church,  as  distinguished  from  the 
State  and  from  the  home,  to  teach?  Broadly 
speaking,  we  may  say,  religion ;  more  narrowly, 
to  teach  the  relation  of  the  children  and  of  the 
adults  to  God,  and  to  the  invisible  and  eternal 
world.  This  is  the  specific  function  of  the  Church. 
It  may  go  further ;  it  often  has  gone  further. 
But  if  it  neglects  this  duty,  who  shall  take  it  up  ? 
I  do  not  propose  to  criticise  synagogue  schools, 
for  I  know  nothing  about  them;  nor  Roman 
Catholic  parochial  schools,  for  I  know  almost 
nothing  about  them.  But  I  do  know  something 
about  Protestant  Sunday-schools,  and  as  a  Pro- 
testant I  have  a  right  to  criticise  the  Sunday- 
schools  of  that  large  body  of  churches  with 
which  I  am  myself  identified.  There  are  many 
noble  and  worthy  exceptions;  but,  with  those 


THE  HOME,  THE  CHURCH,  THE  SCHOOL    79 

exceptions,  the  Church  is  not,  through  its  Sun- 
day-schools, teaching  the  youth  religion ;  that  is, 
it  is  not  teaching  the  youth,  with  any  effective- 
ness, their  relation  to  God  and  to  the  immortal 
life.  For  the  most  part,  Sunday-school  teaching 
consists  of  lay  sermonettes,  or  else  of  asking  out 
of  the  book  questions  which  are  to  be  answered 
by  the  pupil.  Even  if  the  school  has  begun  to 
get  hold  of  modern  criticism  and  teach  a  little  of 
that,  it  is  not  so  taught  as  to  give  a  comprehen- 
sive conception  of  the  Bible,  according  to  either 
the  old  conception  or  the  new.  I  think  it  was  a 
graduate  of  one  of  our  Sunday-schools  who,  on 
being  examined  as  to  his  Bible  knowledge,  was 
asked  the  question,  "  Who  wrote  the  first  two 
chapters  of  the  Book  of  Genesis?"  and  replied, 
"  The  first  chapter  of  Genesis  was  written  by 
God,  and  is  generally  correct;  the  second  chapter 
of  Genesis  was  written  by  the  Lord  God,  and  is 
full  of  inaccuracies." 

I  should  like  to  know  how  many  children  who 
have  graduated  from  our  Sunday-schools  could 
tell  anything  comprehensively  about  the  Bible, 
which  is  the  textbook  of  religion  for  the  Protes- 
tant. How  many  of  them  know  that  it  contains 
sixty-six  books,  and  was  written  by  forty  or  fifty 
different  writers?  How  many  of  them  know  that 
it  is  a  body  of  literature  which  was  a  thousand 


80  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

years  or  more  being  collected?  How  many  of 
them  know  that  it  contains  almost  every  type  of 
literature  known  in  the  literatures  of  the  world? 
How  many  of  them  have  any  comprehensive  con- 
ception of  its  political  teachings?  How  many  of 
them  know  that  the  Hebrew  Commonwealth  was 
the  first  government  on  the  face  of  the  globe  to 
put  restrictions  upon  the  absolute  power  of  a  mon- 
archy, the  first  to  have  a  popular  legislative  as- 
sembly, the  first  to  ask  for  a  judgment  of  the 
people  in  general  elections,  the  first  to  organize 
government  in  three  departments,  —  legislative, 
judicial,  and  executive,  —  the  first  to  prohibit  class 
or  caste  distinctions,  the  first  to  make  any  pro- 
vision for  popular  instruction  ?  How  many  of  the 
children  of  our  Sunday-schools  know  the  simple 
facts  of  its  political  teaching?  And  yet  this  self- 
governing  Republic  is  anchored  on  those  great 
fundamental  principles.  How  many  of  them  know 
the  ethical  teachings  of  the  Bible?  How  many  of 
them  could  give  anything  like  a  comprehensive, 
or  even  a  partial,  fragmentary  interpretation  of 
those  teachings?  How  many  of  them  know  that 
the  Ten  Commandments  form  the  briefest,  the 
most  comprehensive,  the  most  compact  code  of 
morals  the  world  has  ever  seen,  down  even  to  this 
day?  How  many  of  them  know  that  the  four 
great  rights  of  man  —  the  rights  of  property,  of 


THE  HOME,  THE  CHURCH,  THE  SCHOOL    81 

person,  of  reputation,  of  the  family  —  cover  all 
the  fundamental  rights  of  humanity?  How  many 
of  them  know  what  the  rights  of  property  are  as 
interpreted  by  the  Bible,  or  the  rights  of  the  per- 
son, or  the  rights  of  the  family,  or  the  rights  of 
reputation?  How  many  of  them  can  tell  what 
are  even  the  more  simple  and  fundamental  prin- 
ciples inculcated  in  this  book  which  we  call  the 
Book  of  Religion?  How  many  of  them  could  tell 
anything  about  what  it  teaches  respecting  God? 
How  many  of  them  know  that  the  Hebrew  peo- 
ple were  the  first  people  and  the  Hebrew  litera- 
ture the  first  literature  to  recognize  that  God  is 
a  righteous  God  and  demands  righteousness  of 
his  children,  and  demands  nothing  else?  How 
many  of  them  know  that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
were  the  first  literature  and  the  Hebrew  people 
the  first  people  to  recognize  the  fact  that  God 
will  help  men  to  righteousness  if  they  wish  to  be 
helped?  These  are  the  truths  that  lie  upon  the 
surface  and  are  wrought  into  the  texture  of  the 
Bible;  the  truths  that  every  Christian  ought  to 
know,  and  never  will  be  taught  by  homiletic  ser- 
monettes  given  by  uninstructed  teachers  upon 
selected  passages  of  eight  or  ten  verses  a  Sunday. 
Never ! 

The  family  is  to  train  the  child  in  habits  of 


82  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

obedience  to  outward  law  and  obedience  to  the 
inward  laws  of  justice  and  truth.  The  Church  is 
to  teach  man's  relation  to  God,  and,  incidentally 
growing  out  of  that,  man's  relation  to  his  fellow- 
men  ;  to  teach  also  his  relation  to  the  future,  and, 
growing  out  of  that,  his  duty  in  the  present. 
What  ought  our  public  schools  to  teach?  I  am 
not  attempting  in  this  book  to  cover  the  whole 
ground  of  education.  There  are  many  things 
which  our  public  schools  ought  to  teach  and  are 
teaching,  of  which  I  shall  not  speak;  I  consider 
only  those  things  which  the  schools  ought  to 
teach  which  are  essential  to  be  taught  to  self- 
governing  members  of  a  self-governing  commu- 
nity. 

In  the  first  place,  the  State  ought  to  teach 
every  boy  and  every  girl  the  duty  of,  and  give 
to  every  boy  and  every  girl  the  capacity  for,  self- 
support.  The  first  duty  of  a  self-governing  mem- 
ber of  a  self-governing  community  is  not  to  be 
a  beggar;  his  first  duty  is  to  put  as  much  into 
the  treasury  of  life  as  he  takes  out  of  it.  I  do 
not  mean  that  every  man  and  every  woman  is  to 
be  in  a  wage-earning  profession;  I  do  not  mean 
that  every  man  and  every  woman  is  to  pass  over 
the  counter  something  for  which  on  the  other 
side  of  the  counter  money  will  be  given  in  return. 
There  are  no  members  of  the  community  that  are 


THE  HOME,  THE  CHURCH,  THE  SCHOOL    83 

so  ill  paid  in  money  for  their  splendid  service  as 
the  wives  and  mothers  in  the  home.  When  I  hear 
a  modern  reformer  demanding  a  woman's  eco- 
nomic independence,  I  laugh  at  her.  The  wife  is 
not  more  economically'dependent  on  the  husband 
than  the  husband  is  on  the  wife,  as  many  a  hus- 
band could  testify  whose  fortune  has  been  due  to 
the  wise  administration  of  his  wife,  and  some  hus- 
bands could  also  sorrowfully  testify,  who  cannot 
make  money  so  fast  but  that  their  wives  can 
spend  it  still  faster.  The  first  duty  of  a  citizen  of 
a  self-governing  community  is  to  be  self-support- 
ing, and  therefore  the  first  duty  of  the  public 
school  is  to  give  the  boy  and  the  girl  capacity 
for  self-support.  The  end  of  education  is  the  de- 
velopment of  character;  the  test  of  character  is 
capacity  for  service.  The  Hebrew  law  required 
every  professional  student  first  to  learn  a  trade. 
So  Paul,  though  he  became  a  rabbi,  was  a  tent- 
maker,  and  it  stood  him  in  good  stead.  There  is 
a  curious  prejudice  against  industrial  education 
which  I  do  not  understand ;  a  curious  notion  that 
industrial  education  is  on  a  lower  plane  than  a 
literary  or  scholastic  education.  Is  a  lawyer  indus- 
trious ?  then  a  law  school  is  an  industrial  school. 
Is  a  doctor  industrious?  then  a  medical  school  is 
an  industrial  school.  Is  a  minister  industrious? 
then  a  theological  school  is  an  industrial  school. 


84  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

Whatever  fits  a  man  for  public  service  in  practi- 
cal industry  in  life  is  industrial  education. 

Nor  can  I  understand  the  prejudice  against 
manual  training  —  the  education  of  the  hand.  I 
always  hesitate  to  criticise  those  who  directed  my 
childhood.  We  older  men  look  back  across  the 
gap  of  years  and  remember  the  defects  rather  than 
the  excellencies  in  our  training.  But  as  I  look 
back  it  seems  to  me  that  I  got  the  idea  that  the 
only  use  of  the  hand  was  to  hold  a  book,  and  the 
only  use  of  the  eyes  was  to  read  it.  That  nature 
is  to  be  studied,  that  we  must  know  how  to  act  as 
well  as  to  think,  that  the  hand  is  to  have  skill  to 
do  as  well  as  the  brain  skill  to  plan  —  this  was 
hardly  in  the  education  of  my  childhood,  and  is 
not  too  much  in  the  education  of  the  children  of 
to-day.  Germany  is  in  advance  of  us  in  this  re- 
spect. It  differentiates  its  system  of  education,  and 
provides  alike  for  the  mechanical,  the  commercial, 
and  the  professional  career.  But  not  by  the  same 
kind  of  education.  Thought  is  valuable  only  as  it 
is  translated  into  action.  I  hope  I  am  giving  my 
readers  some  thoughts  in  this  book ;  but  if  that 
is  the  end,  the  book  is  useless.  It  is  useful  only 
as  parents  and  teachers  put  them  into  action. 
The  function  of  manual  training  is  to  connect  the 
brain  with  the  hand,  and  thus  show  how  to  trans- 
late thoughts  into  deeds. 


THE  HOME,  THE  CHURCH,  THE  SCHOOL  85 

In  the  second  place,  every  self-governing  mem- 
ber of  a  self-governing  community  ought  to  be 
taught  to  think  for  himself.  Our  slaves,  says 
Plato,  take  the  thoughts  of  others  and  act  upon 
them ;  we  might  transpose  that  sentence  and  say, 
He  who  takes  the  thoughts  of  others  without 
thinking  for  himself  is  a  slave.  Give  the  ballot  to 
a  thousand  men  without  capacity  to  do  their  own 
thinking  and  they  will  blindly  follow  the  dema- 
gogues who  appeal  to  their  passions  and  their 
prejudices.  If  we  want  an  autocracy,  then  we 
should  educate  the  boys  and  girls  to  act  unques- 
tioningly  upon  authority  and  obey  it ;  if  we  want 
a  democracy,  we  should  educate  our  boys  and  girls 
to  think  for  themselves.  And  there  is  no  possible 
way  by  which  we  can  educate  them  to  think  for 
themselves  in  one  department  of  life  and  not  in 
another.  We  cannot  teach  our  boys  and  girls  to 
think  in  the  realm  of  politics  without  teaching 
them  to  think  independently  in  the  realm  of  re- 
ligion and  in  the  realm  of  industry.  He  who  will 
ask  why  in  the  one  case  will  ask  why  in  the 
other.  There  is  no  possible  way  by  which  the 
workingman  can  be  made  free  from  the  political 
boss  and  subservient  to  the  industrial  boss ;  no 
possible  way  by  which  the  great  American  people 
can  be  made  free  from  the  government  of  machines 
in  politics  and  subject  to  government  of  ecclesi- 


86  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

astics  in  the  Church.  There  must  be  independence 
everywhere  or  nowhere. 

In  the  third  place,  our  boys  and  girls  must  be 
taught  to  understand  the  thoughts  of  other  men 
whom  they  do  not  agree  with,  for  they  have  to  go 
out  into  life  and  work  with  other  men  they  do  not 
agree  with,  and  we  cannot  work  with  another 
efficiently  unless  we  can  understand  him.  We  may 
differ  from  him,  but  we  must  understand  him. 
Our  boys  and  girls  must  be  taught  to  be  open- 
minded  ;  the  windows  must  be  thrown  open,  and 
all  thoughts  and  all  teachings  they  must  be  ready 
to  consider,  weigh,  and  judge.  This  Christian  boy 
must  learn  to  understand  what  is  agnosticism,  and 
this  agnostic  boy  what  is  Christianity ;  this  Roman 
Catholic  boy  what  is  Protestantism,  and  this  Pro- 
testant boy  what  is  Roman  Catholicism ;  this  laborer 
what  are  the  theories  of  capitalists,  and  this  capi- 
talist what  are  the  theories  of  the  laborer ;  this 
Republican  what  are  the  opinions  of  the  Demo- 
crats, and  this  Democrat  what  are  the  opinions  of 
the  Republicans.  We  take  our  own  church  paper, 
and  do  not  know  what  the  other  church  paper  is 
saying ;  we  take  our  own  political  paper,  and  do 
not  know  what  the  other  political  paper  is  saying ; 
the  laborer  goes  to  the  trades  union  and  does  not 
know  what  the  capitalists  are  saying,  and  the 
capitalists  go  to  their  own  meeting  and  hardly 


THE  HOME,  THE  CHURCH,  THE  SCHOOL    87 

know  what  the  trades  unions  are  saying — except 
when  they  cannot  help  but  hear.  Power  to  think 
for  one's  self,  power  to  understand  those  one  does 
not  agree  with  —  these  two  things  are  absolutely 
essential  to  peace,  harmony,  and  cooperation  in 
a  self-educating  and  self-governing  community. 

And,  next,  understanding  of  the  great  laws  of 
the  social  order  —  what  they  are,  how  they  oper- 
ate. What  does  the  Golden  Rule  mean  as  applied 
to  modern  conditions?  How  ought  the  conscience 
to  act?  What  ought  to  be  the  moral  judgment 
on  current  questions  ?  I  know  some  eminent 
teachers  who  think  that  all  moral  instruction 
should  be  left  to  the  family  and  the  Sunday- 
school,  and  I  know  some  others  who  think  it 
should  be  only  a  by-product.  I  cannot  agree  with 
either.  If  we  must  understand  the  great  laws  of 
nature  and  how  its  forces  act,  we  must  also  under- 
stand the  great  laws  of  human  nature  and  how  its 
forces  act.  The  public  school  ought  to  be  set  free 
from  the  conventions  which  have  sometimes  en- 
chained it,  and  not  only  be  permitted  but  required 
to  teach  the  great  fundamental  laws  of  person,  of 
property,  of  chastity,  and  of  reputation. 

This  self -governing  community  must  have  great 
ideals.  Progress  is  proceeding  from  a  past  achieve- 
ment toward  a  future  of  as  yet  unrealized  achieve- 
ment. The  man  who  has  no  ideals  is  dead  and 


88  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

does  not  know  it,  though  his  neighbors  do.  The 
nation  that  has  no  ideals  is  dead ;  it  has  no  energy 
or  enterprise.  Energy  and  enterprise  depend  on 
the  ideals.  It  was  an  idealist  who  in  the  days  o£ 
the  stagecoach  conceived  of  the  steam  locomotive. 
It  was  an  idealist  who  dreamed  of  the  time  when 
we  should  communicate  by  electricity.  Idealists 
have  enabled  us  to  run  like  the  deer,  swim  like 
the  fish,  fly  like  the  bird.  When  it  was  proposed 
to  add  Oregon  to  the  United  States,  practical  men 
said,  "  It  will  never  do ;  before  your  Representa- 
tive can  get  from  Oregon  to  Washington,  Con- 
gress will  have  adjourned."  It  was  an  idealist  who 
conceived  the  idea  of  building  a  steel  bridge  from 
Washington  to  Oregon.  The  fathers  of  our  Revo- 
lution were  idealists,  and  gave  to  the  world  their 
vision  of  a  Government  resting  on  self-govern- 
ment. If  we  ever  come  into  that  state  in  which 
we  think,  as  some  people  seem  to  think,  that 
nothing  can  be  done  to-morrow  which  was  not 
done  yesterday,  we  shall  be  ready  to  be  wrapped 
in  our  burial  clothes  and  put  in  our  graves. 

But  we  must  also  know  how  to  test  these  ideals 
and  determine  what  are  realizable  hopes  and  what 
are  impossible  dreams.  We  must  not  only  know 
the  great  literature  of  the  past,  written  by  the 
idealists,  we  must  know  the  great  experiences  of 
the  past  in  which  ideals  have  been  tested  and  tried. 


THE  HOME,  THE  CHURCH,  THE  SCHOOL    89 

We  must  not  only  know  how  to  think,  but  we 
must  know  how  to  apply  our  thinking  to  the 
actualities  of  life,  and  how  to  test  our  thinking 
by  the  practical  experience  of  the  world.  This  is 
the  value  of  history.  The  knowledge  of  history 
is,  or  ought  to  be,  the  knowledge  of  what  the 
world  has  been  doing,  how  the  world  has  been 
growing.  The  life  of  the  past  shines  out  as  a 
headlight  on  the  track  of  the  future.  If  all  our 
country  had  understood  the  experience  of  the 
French  Revolution,  we  should  hardly  have  had  a 
greenback  heresy  foisted  on  us.  If  all  the  coun- 
try had  realized  what  universal  ignorance  suf- 
frage had  wrought  into  San  Domingo,  we  should 
hardly  have  had  universal  suffrage  in  the  South- 
ern States  foisted  upon  us.  If  all  the  world  knew 
to-day  the  result  of  the  Socialistic  experiment  in 
other  lands,  our  idealistic  Socialists  would  at  least 
pause  a  little  —  perhaps. 

A  self-governing  community  must  not  only 
know  how  to  act  and  how  to  think ;  there  is  some- 
thing more  than  action,  something  more  than 
thinking.  Life  includes  beauty  as  well  as  know- 
ledge. No  man  is  a  complete  man  who  goes 
through  the  land  blind  to  beauty  and  deaf  to 
music.  A  true  nation,  a  prosperous  nation,  a  liv- 
ing nation,  lives  not  only  in  its  industrial  activi- 
ties, its  commercial  activities,  its  theological  and 


90  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

philosophical  activities ;  it  lives  also  in  its  artistic 
activities.  America  needs  to  know  what  the 
Greeks  knew  so  well,  who  had  one  word  both  for 
virtue  and  beauty.  To  them  virtue  was  a  form  of 
beauty,  and  beauty  was  a  form  of  virtue.  Good- 
ness, beauty,  truth  —  these  are  but  three  aspects 
of  the  one  great  reality.  It  is  in  vain  that  Mr. 
Carnegie  multiplies  his  libraries  if  we  are  not 
multiplying  intelligent  readers  to  get  life  out  of 
them.  It  is  in  vain  that  Mr.  J.  Pierpont  Morgan 
endows  and  enriches  the  Metropolitan  Museum  if 
we  are  not  educating  boys  and  girls  to  take  delight 
in  statuary  and  in  pictures.  It  is  in  vain  that  we 
build  music-halls  and  opera-houses  if  our  boys  and 
girls  are  not  so  educated  that  their  life  will  be 
expressed  and  enriched  by  the  music  which  is 
there  rendered. 

What  is  all  this  but  saying  that  we  must  edu- 
cate for  life  and  by  means  of  life  ?  We  must  attach 
our  schools  to  life.  We  must  bring  them  forth 
from  life.  We  must  make  education  the  process 
from  a  child's  experience  to  a  man's  experience, 
as  the  growth  of  the  plant  is  from  the  seed.  Some 
teachers  tell  me  that  in  their  schools  they  find 
the  children  of  the  rich  more  awkward  than  the 
children  of  the  poor,  because  the  children  of  the 
poor  have  been  expected  to  take  care  of  them- 
selves and  the  children  of  the  rich  have  been  taken 


THE  HOME,  THE  CHURCH,  THE  SCHOOL    91 

care  of  so  much  that  they  do  not  know  how  to 
move  with  gracefulness.  Some  teachers  tell  me 
that  the  children  of  the  poor  grapple  with  intel- 
lectual problems  better  than  the  children  of  the 
rich,  because  the  children  of  the  poor  have  been 
thrown  upon  their  own  resources  and  compelled 
to  grapple,  while  the  children  of  the  rich  have 
been  taken  out  of  life  by  a  mistaken  kindness. 
Perhaps  this  is  too  broad  a  generalization  from  too 
narrow  an  experience ;  I  do  not  know ;  but  this 
I  do  know,  that  wherever  a  child  is  robbed  of  the 
experience  of  life  he  is  robbed  of  the  benefits  of 
education.  Education  must  begin  with  experience 
and  go  through  experience  to  a  perfected  experi- 
ence. Pestalozzi  went  at  one  period  of  his  career 
to  Paris,  and  a  friend  endeavored  to  present  him 
to  Napoleon  the  Great.  Napoleon  declined.  "I 
have  no  time  for  A  B  C,"  he  said.  When  Pesta- 
lozzi returned  to  his  home,  his  friends  asked  him, 
*'  Did  you  see  Napoleon  the  Great  ?  "  "  No,  I  did 
not  see  Napoleon  the  Great,  and  Napoleon  the 
Great  did  not  see  me."  Napoleon  the  Great  lived 
to  see  the  empire  which  he  had  founded  on  soldiers 
crumble  to  pieces  because  he  had  had  no  time  to 
attend  to  A  B  C. 

The  builders  of  this  Nation  are  not  the  men  at 
Washington;  the  builders  of  this  Nation  are  the 
fathers,  the  mothers,  the  teachers.  To  educate 


92  THE   SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

the  child  from  the  cradle,  to  habituate  him  to 
obedience,  to  develop  in  him  the  sense  of  justice 
and  of  truthfulness,  to  train  him  to  habits  of  a 
divine  manhood,  then,  with  this  training,  to  launch 
him  into  the  school,  and  there,  not  to  work  against 
the  school,  as  some  mothers  do,  not  to  be  indif- 
ferent to  the  school,  as  many  fathers  are,  but  to 
cooperate  with  the  teacher,  in  support  of  her  au- 
thority, in  sympathy  with  her  instruction,  in  aid  of 
her  work,  and  in  that  cooperation  to  connect  all 
that  teaching  with  the  home  and  with  the  life,  so 
that  this  child,  growing  to  manhood,  may  learn 
how  to  support  himself,  to  do  his  own  thinking, 
to  understand  the  thoughts  of  his  neighbor,  to 
live  with  that  neighbor  in  harmony,  in  justice, 
righteousness,  and  fair  dealing;  to  give  the  child 
splendid  ideals  beckoning  him  on,  to  give  him  the 
lessons  of  past  history  holding  him  in  check,  to 
give  him  the  joy  that  comes  through  beauty,  and 
to  make  all  his  teaching  grow  out  of  his  life  and 
fit  him  for  his  life — this  is  the  work  of  education 
in  a  self -educating  community  preparing  itself 
for  self-government. 


CHAPTER  VII 

PRESENT    CONDITIONS   IN   INDUSTRY 

A  RECENT  English  writer  has  thus  described  a 
scene  which  one  may  witness  any  Sunday  morn- 
ing in  the  streets  of  one  of  the  greatest  commer- 
cial capitals  of  Christendom,  the  city  of  London : 

Sunday  morning  witnesses  the  strangest  sight  in 
these  streets.  The  lodgers  hold  a  bazaar.  From  end 
to  end  the  railings  are  hung  with  fusty  and  almost 
moving  rags,  the  refuse  of  the  week's  picking  and 
stealing,  which  no  pawnbroker  can  be  brought  to  buy. 
Neighbors,  barely  dressed,  many  of  them  with  black 
eyes,  bandaged  heads,  and  broken  mouths,  turn  out  to 
inspect  this  frightful  collection  of  rags.  There  is  bar- 
gaining, buying,  and  exchanging.  Practically  naked 
children  look  on  and  learn  the  tricks  of  the  trade.  If 
you  could  see  the  bareheaded  women,  with  their  hang- 
ing hair,  their  ferocious  eyes,  their  brutal  mouths  ;  if 
you  could  see  them  there,  half  dressed,  and  that  in  a 
draggle-tailed  slovenliness  incomparably  horrible;  and 
if  you  could  hear  the  appalling  language  loading  their 
hoarse  voices,  and  from  their  phrases  receive  into  your 
mind  some  impression  of  their  modes  of  thought,  you 
would  say  that  human  nature  in  the  earliest  and  most 
barbarous  of  its  evolutionary  changes  had  never,  could 
never  have,  been  like  this ;  that  these  people  are  mov- 


94  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

ing  on  in  a  line  of  their  own ;  that  they  have  produced 
something  definitely  non-human,  which  is  as  distinct 
from  humanity  as  the  anthropoid  ape.  Ruth,  or  even 
Mary  of  Magdala,  at  the  beginning  of  the  line ;  two 
thousand  years  of  progress ;  and  then  these  corrupt  and 
mangy  things  at  the  end !  This  is  not  to  be  believed. 
No ;  they  do  not  belong  to  the  advancing  line,  they 
have  never  been  human.  For  the  honor  of  humanity 
one  rejects  them.1 

The  picture  is  not  too  dark.  Any  one  who  has 
visited  the  slums  of  London  can  attest  its  photo- 
graphic reality;  and  although  I  think  the  slums 
of  London  are  probably  the  worst  slums  in  Chris- 
tendom, worse  than  those  of  Paris  or  Naples, 
worse  than  those  of  New  York  or  Chicago,  yet 
almost  every  civilized  city  contains  a  population 
somewhat  answering  to  the  description  from  which 
I  have  taken  this  paragraph.  Different  in  degree, 
but  not  different  in  kind,  of  misery,  vice,  and  de- 
gradation, such  are  some  of  our  neighbors  in 
most  of  our  great  cities.  How  came  they  here? 

What  responsibility  have  we  for  them?  I  re- 
call that  story  of  the  rich  man  who  dressed  in  fine 
linen  and  fared  sumptuously  every  day,  and  for- 
got the  beggar  at  his  door.  You  and  I,  reader, 
are  not  rich  men,  as  we  sometimes  count  riches, 
and  perhaps  fare  not  very  sumptuously  every  day, 

1  Harold  Bcgbie,  Twice-Born  Men,  pp.  34,  35. 


PRESENT  CONDITIONS  IN  INDUSTRY      95 

and  yet  if  we  forget  this  Lazarus  at  our  door  we 
shall  subject  ourselves  to  something  of  that  con- 
demnation which  the  Master  visited  on  the  indif- 
ferent rich  man  of  the  olden  time. 

What  shall  we  do  with  this  fruit  of  Christen- 
dom? How  came  the  tree  to  bear  such  fruit? 
These  are  the  questions  to  which  in  this  and  the 
two  succeeding  chapters  I  ask  my  readers'  atten- 
tion. First,  I  shall  trace  rapidly  the  course  of  his- 
tory which  has  produced  these  phenomena ;  next, 
point  out  briefly  some  proposed  remedies  for  the 
evil."1 

At  first  the  capitalist  owned  the  laborer :  that 
was  slavery.  Then  the  capitalist  owned  the  land 
and  the  laborer  was  attached  to  the  land ;  the  la- 
borer owed  the  landlord  service,  the  landlord  owed 
the  laborer  protection  :  that  was  feudalism.  Then 
came  individualism  in  industry,  as  there  came  in- 
dividualism in  government ;  the  laborer  was  free, 
no  longer  attached  to  the  master,  no  longer  at- 
tached to  the  land,  might  go  where  he  would, 
owed  nothing  to  the  master ;  and  the  master  was 
free,  owed  no  longer  protection  to  the  slave,  owed 
no  longer  protection  to  the  villein.  Each  was  free ; 

1  Habitual  readers  of  The  Outlook  and  readers  of  my  book 
publications  on  social  topics  will  find  the  ideas,  and  perhaps  even 
the  phraseology,  of  this  chapter  familiar.  I  am  here  simply  put- 
ting into  compact  form  ideals  which  I  have  been  persistently 
urging  by  voice  and  pen  for  nearly  half  a  century. 


96  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

and  the  laborer  could  sell  his  labor  in  the  hig-h- 

o 

est  market,  the  capitalist  could  buy  his  labor  in 
the  cheapest  market. 

This  might  have  served  if  society  had  remained 
individualistic.  But  society  did  not  remain  indi- 
vidualistic ;  it  became  organized.  Two  causes  pro- 
duced this  industrial  organization.  First,  the  dis- 
covery of  natural  forces  to  do  the  world's  drudgery 
for  it,  and  the  accompanying  invention  of  ma- 
chinery. Second,  the  discovery  that  the  division 
of  labor  was  of  great  economic  advantage  in  the 
production  of  articles.  In  the  place  of  single  looms 
owned  and  operated  by  single  weavers,  there  grew 
up,  through  the  discovery  of  steam  and  the  in- 
ventions that  followed  it,  the  great  factory,  with 
its  numerous  spinning-wheels  and  its  numerous 
looms.  Thrifty  men  who  had  put  by  a  little  money, 
or  fortunate  men  who  had  inherited  fortunes,  com- 
bined and  built  the  factory  in  combination.  The 
partnership  and  the  corporation  followed ;  and  so 
grew  up,  by  a  natural  and  necessary  process,  a 
combination  of  capital.  But,  in  order  to  run  the 
factory,  the  railway,  the  mine,  it  was  necessary 
that  labor  should  be  organized  as  well  as  capital, 
and  each  particular  kind  of  labor  assigned  to  the 
particular  laborer.  Thus  organized  labor  and  or- 
ganized capital  grew  up  side  by  side. 

We  sometimes  find  men  discussing  the  question 


PRESENT  CONDITIONS  IN  INDUSTRY     97 

-whether  labor  ought  to  organize.  Labor  must  be 
organized.  We  cannot  carry  on  modern  industry 
unless  labor  is  organized.  We  cannot  have  a  loco- 
motive engineer  saying,  "  This  morning  I  will  run 
a  locomotive,  to-morrow  morning  I  prefer  to  be 
a  brakeman,  and  the  next  morning  I  will  not  come 
at  all."  Railway  workmen  must  be  organized,  and 
so  must  factory  workmen  and  mine  workmen.  The 
ojily  real  question  is  whether  the  men  who  con- 
stitute the  organization  shall  have  anything  to  say 
respecting  the  nature  of  its  organization.  Organi- 
zation of  capital,  organization  of  labor,  that  is 
inherent,  indisputably  inherent,  in  the  modern 
industrial  organization. 

Thus  has  grown  up  the  modern  system,  some- 
times called  capitalism,  sometimes  called  the  wages 
system.  Under  this  system  a  comparatively  small 
body  of  men  own  all  the  tools  and  implements 
with  which  industry  is  carried  on :  the  lands,  the 
mines,  the  factories,  the  railways,  the  forests;  and 
a  great  body  of  men  do  the  work  with  these  tools 
and  implements,  not  owning  them.  The  men  who 
own  the  tools  we  call  capitalists,  the  men  who  do 
the  work  with  the  tools  we  call  laborers.  Sometimes 
the  laborers  hire  the  tools  from  the  capitalists  and 
pay  what  we  call  rent ;  sometimes  the  capitalist 
hires  the  laborer  to  work  with  the  tools  and  pays 
what  we  call  wages.  Occasionally  the  capitalist  and 


98  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

the  laborer  make  a  bargain  that  the  laborer  shall 
work  with  the  capitalist's  tools  and  divide  the  pro- 
ceeds in  some  ratio  between  the  two.  That  is  not 
an  uncommon  method  on  some  of  the  Southern 
plantations  to-day.  But  whichever  way  the  ar- 
rangement is  made,  one  small  body  of  men  own 
practically  all  the  tools  and  implements  with  which 
industry  is  carried  on,  and  those  tools  and  imple- 
ments are  called  capital,  and  the  men  who  own 
them  are  called  capitalists;  and  a  great  body  of 
men  carry  on  the  industry  with  these  tools  and 
implements,  and  they  are  called  laborers  or  wage- 
earners. 

Many  persons  imagine  that  this  wages  system 
has  lasted  from  eternity  and  will  last  to  eternity, 
because  they  have  never  known  any  other  system. 
In  point  of  fact,  it  was  born  about  the  beginning 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  I  do  not  believe 
that  it  will  outlast  the  twentieth  century.  The  evils 
of  this  system  are  many  and  great,  and  have  been 
often  recognized  by  scholars  of  every  class. 

In  the  first  place,  this  system  divides  society 
into  two  great  classes,  more  or  less  hostile  :  a  body 
of  laborers  who  desire  to  get  the  largest  possible 
wage,  that  is,  the  largest  possible  share  of  the 
proceeds  of  the  industry,  and  a  body  of  capital- 
ists who,  except  as  their  desires  are  modified  by 
humanity,  desire  to  pay  the  least  possible  wage  to 


PRESENT  CONDITIONS  IN  INDUSTRY    99 

get  the  product  of  the  industry.  Both  desires  were 
not  only  recognized,  they  were  fostered,  by  the  old 
political  economy.  The  capitalist  was  instructed 
to  buy  the  labor  in  the  cheapest  market,  that  is, 
he  was  to  pay  as  little  wages  as  he  could  and  get 
the  work  done,  and  the  laborer  was  instructed  to 
sell  his  labor  in  the  highest  market,  that  is,  he  was 
to  do  as  little  work  as  possible  and  get  his  wages ; 
and  a  good  many  of  both  classes  lived  up  to  the 
principle  thus  inculcated. 

In  the  second  place,  this  wages  system  inevi- 
tably creates  a  concentration  of  wealth.  It  creates 
a  small  class  of  more  or  less,  and  generally  in- 
creasingly, wealthy  men,  and  a  large  class  of  more 
or  less  dependent  men.  The  startling  facts  are 
thus  given  in  Charles  B.  Spahr's  book  on  "The 
Present  Distribution  of  Wealth,"  the  best  book, 
I  think,  on  the  subject  in  the  English  language : 

To  sum  up  the  whole  situation,  therefore,  it  appears 
that  the  general  distribution  of  incomes  in  the  United 
States  is  wider  and  better  than  in  most  of  the  coun- 
tries of  western  Europe.  Despite  this  fact,  however, 
one  eighth  of  the  families  in  America  receive  more  than 
half  of  the  aggregate  income,  and  the  richest  one  per 
cent  receives  a  larger  income  than  the  poorest  fifty 
per  cent.  In  fact,  this  small  class  of  wealthy  prop- 
erty-owners receives  from  property  alone  as  large  an 
income  as  half  our  people  receive  from  property  and 
labor. 


100  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

I  would  like  to  put  that  in  a  little  more  dra- 
matic form.  The  average  wage  of  the  workingman 
in  America  ranges  from  75  cents  to  $5  a  day. 
The  wage  which  Mr.  Gould  received  in  his  life- 
time was  $13,000  a  day;  the  discrepancy  the  work- 
ingman thinks  too  large,  and  I  personally  agree 
with  him.  Mr.  Vanderbilt  —  Cornelius,  the  elder 
—  died,  after  a  long  and  useful  life,  leaving  a 
property  estimated  by  the  newspapers  at  $200,- 
000,000 ;  I  do  not  vouch  for  the  estimate — I  take 
it  as  I  find  it.  If  Adam  was  created,  as  our  old 
chronology  thought  he  was,  six  thousand  years 
ago,  and  if  he  had  lived  to  this  day,  and  had  been 
an  industrious  worker  and  had  never  lost  a  day 
through  sickness  or  misfortune,  and  had  laid  up 
$100  every  working  day  of  every  year  of  that 
six  thousand  years,  he  would  not  have  laid  up  as 
much  money  as  Cornelius  Vanderbilt  acquired  in 
one  lifetime. 

This  is  the  second  objection  to  the  present  sys- 
tem :  inequality  in  the  distribution  of  the  product 
of  labor.  The  laborer  who  works  with  the  tools 
gets  too  small  a  share,  the  tool-owner  gets  too 
large  a  share,  and  the  great  laboring  class  are  de- 
pendent on  the  tool-owners  for  the  opportunity 
to  work.  "  In  the  sweat  of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat 
bread,'*  says  the  divine  command ;  the  wages  sys- 
tem says  to  hundreds  and  thousands  of  Ameri- 


PRESENT  CONDITIONS  IN  INDUSTRY    101 

cans,  and  untold  multitudes  in  the  Old  World, 
Thou  shalt  not  earn  thy  daily  bread  by  the  sweat 
of  thy  brow — thou  shalt  have  no  chance.  In  a 
prosperous  time  there  are  comparatively  few  men 
•who  cannot  find  a  chance  to  do  some  work  some- 
where for  some  sort  of  pay ;  but  a  few  years  ago 
there  were  tramping  through  this  country,  it  was 
estimated,  three  millions  of  men  seeking  for  jobs 
—  some  of  them  earnestly  seeking,  some  of  them 
not  so  much  in  earnest,  but  still  out  of  work. 
Josephine  Shaw  Lowell,  who  is  a  careful  statisti- 
cian, reported  that  one  year  there  were  220,000 
individuals  helped  by  charity  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  and  she  says,  "  There  is  no  possibility  of 
the  duplication  of  individuals  in  this  estimate." 
I  do  not  vouch  for  these  figures  in  the  one  case 
or  in  the  other,  but  they  unquestionably  represent 
immense  masses  of  men  and  women  who  live  on 
the  verge  of  starvation,  and  who,  if  they  are  laid 
aside  for  a  week,  or  even  for  a  day,  by  illness  or 
misfortune,  wonder  where  the  next  week's  bread 
will  come  from  for  their  wives  and  their  children. 
Sometimes  the  contrast  is  pathetic,  sometimes 
dramatic.  One  day  the  diners  at  the  Waldorf-As- 
toria were  startled  by  having  an  Indian  club  flung 
through  the  plate-glass  window  and  fall  upon 
their  table.  Men  rushed  out  and  arrested  the  as- 
sailant, and  he  was  taken  to  the  police  station ; 


102  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

and  this  was  his  story :  That  he  was  a  mechanic ; 
that  he  was  out  of  work ;  that  he  could  get  no- 
thing to  do  anywhere ;  that  he  was  an  expert  with 
Indian  clubs ;  that  it  finally  occurred  to  him  that 
he  could  give  some  exhibitions  with  the  Indian 
clubs  in  saloons ;  that  he  went  from  one  saloon  to 
another ;  that  he  could  earn  nothing  by  his  ex- 
hibition ;  and  finally,  hungry  and  sore  at  heart, 
and  walking  up  Fifth  Avenue,  he  saw  these  men 
and  women  feasting  on  viands  that  they  could 
not  digest  after  they  had  eaten  them,  and  in  a 
moment  of  passionate  rage  flung  his  club  through 
the  window.  I  believe  he  was  locked  up.  I 
thought  the  magistrate  showed  wisdom  in  giving 
him  a  good  dinner.  Reader,  imagine,  if  you  can, 
yourself  walking  the  street,  looking  for  work,  and 
compelled  to  come  back  night  after  night  to 
hungry  children  and  a  disappointed  wife. 

Out  of  this  dependent  class  —  dependent  on  the 
capitalist  for  opportunity  to  work  —  there  grows 
another  great  dependent  class.  Out  of  the  tramps 
seeking  for  work  the  beggars  are  developed,  and 
out  of  the  beggars  the  sneak-thieves,  and  out  of 
the  sneak-thieves  the  burglars.  Thus  men  grow 
up  in  an  atmosphere  of  hostility  to  society.  As 
there  is  a  profession  of  lawyers,  and  one  of  doc- 
tors, and  one  of  ministers,  and  one  of  teachers, 
so  there  is  a  profession  of  burglars,  for  which 


PRESENT  CONDITIONS  IN  INDUSTRY    103 

children  are  trained  from  the  cradle  by  men  whose 
hearts  have  been  embittered  against  modern  so- 
ciety that  refuses  them  a  place,  an  opportunity, 
a  right  to  live.  I  do  not  justify  it,  but  I  do  not 
wonder  at  it. 

If  this  process  was  only  accompanied  at  the 
end  by  something  to  compensate  for  it,  if  by  this 
wage-earning  system  we  were  sacrificing  some  in 
order  to  develop  a  high  and  noble  aristocracy,  if 
we  could  only  believe  with  Nietzsche  that  the  end 
of  civilization  is  to  develop  one  single  typical  man, 
and  we  could  find  this  man  among  our  plutocrats, 
we  might  bear  the  condition  with  philosophy. 
But,  in  point  of  fact,  neither  the  beggars  nor  the 
criminals  are  all  found  among  the  poor. 

Hark  !  Hark  !  The  dogs  do  bark! 
The  beggars  are  coming  to  town ; 
Some  in  rags,  and  some  in  tags, 
And  some  in  velvet  gowns. 

Yes,  "  some  in  velvet  gowns."  For  the  men  and 
the  women  who  do  not  by  some  kind  of  service, 
in  the  mill,  in  the  factory,  in  the  street,  in  the 
school-room,  in  the  family,  in  the  home,  put  into 
society  as  much  as  they  take  out  belong  in  the 
beggar  class,  whether  they  tramp  in  outworn  shoes 
or  in  steamers  and  automobiles. 

Nor  do  we  find  the  criminals  all  recruited  from 
the  poor.  There  is  to-day  more  than  one  man 


104  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

serving  his  sentence  in  the  penitentiary  who  last 
year,  as  the  president  of  a  great  corporation,  oc- 
cupied a  position  of  trust  and  honor  in  the  com- 
munity. And  it  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge 
that  there  are  men  of  large  wealth  who  employ 
skilled  lawyers  to  teach  them  how  they  can  vio- 
late the  law  and  yet  escape  the  penalties  of  the 
law.  Vice,  in  certain  aspects  of  our  rich  soci- 
ety, is  more  gilded  but  not  less  awful  than  the 
same  sort  of  vice  which  has  been  described  by  the 
writer  quoted  above,  as  existing  in  the  slums  of 
London.  Sensuality  and  intoxication  are  not  bet- 
ter because  they  are  well  dressed ;  vice  is  no  nobler 
in  Fifth  Avenue  than  it  is  on  the  East  Side,  nor 
the  drunken  bout  the  better  for  being  incited  by 
champagne  instead  of  by  whisky. 

What  are  the  remedies  ?  Is  there  any  remedy  ? 

There  are  many  persons  who,  so  far  as  they 
have  thought  of  it  at  all,  consider  that  the  only 
remedy  is  regulation  by  law,  improvement  by  edu- 
cation, and  amelioration  by  charity.  The  wages 
system  seems  to  them  inherent  and  essential. 
There  is  no  getting  along  without  it.  But  society 
can  regulate  the  actions  of  the  capitalist,  and  can 
easily  regulate  the  actions  of  the  workingman,  and 
can  punish  the  crimes  into  which  either  of  them 
are  led.  At  the  same  time,  by  the  pulpit  and  the 
press,  we  can  develop  a  better  public  conscience. 


PRESENT  CONDITIONS  IN  INDUSTRY    105 

In  addition,  we  can  do  something  to  relieve  the 
distress  and  reform  the  vices  which  are  born  of 
this  system.  So,  fifty  years  ago,  good  Christian 
men  in  the  South  believed  that  slavery  was  essen- 
tial to  the  well-being  of  society.  It  could  not  be 
abolished.  But  slaveholders  could  treat  their 
slaves  with  justice  and  kindness,  harsh  slave  laws 
could  be  repealed,  certain  rights  of  the  slaves 
could  be  protected,  and  gradually,  with  the  moral 
elevation  of  the  race,  the  divine  institution  of 
slavery  could  be  rid  of  its  more  noxious  fruits.  I 
do  not  believe  that  either  regulation  or  gradual 
moral  reform  or  charity  will  set  the  world  right. 
I  do  not  believe  that  the  evil  of  our  present  in- 
dustrial system  will  be  cured  by  anything  less  than 
a  radical  change,  though  it  may  be,  and  I  think 
it  will  be,  a  gradual  one.  I  am  quite  of  the  mind 
of  Thomas  Carlyle :  — 

This  general  well  and  cesspool,  once  baled  and  clear, 
to-day  will  begin  to  fill  itself  anew.  The  universal 
Stygian  quagmire  is  still  there,  opulent  in  women  ready 
to  be  ruined,  and  in  men  ready.  Toward  the  same  sad 
cesspool  will  these  waste  currents  of  human  sin  ooze 
and  gravitate,  as  heretofore.  Except  in  draining  the 
universal  quagmire  itself  there  is  no  remedy.1 

More  radical  than  mere  regulation  by  law  and 
amelioration  by  charity  is  the  proposal  for  "  col- 

1  Latter-Day  Pamphlets,  Chapman  &  Hall  ed.,  p.  24. 


106  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

lective  bargaining."  The  individual  workingman 
has  no  chance  in  dealing  with  collective  capital. 
This  workingman  must  take  the  wages  the  rail- 
way will  give  to  him,  because  his  going  puts  the 
railway  to  no  inconvenience ;  but  his  going  means 
idleness  and  misery  to  him.  This  factory  man 
must  take  the  wages  which  the  factory  offers, 
if  he  stands  alone,  because  his  individual  with- 
drawal produces  no  inconvenience  to  the  factory; 
but  for  him  his  withdrawal  is  from  something  to 
nothing.  So  workingmen  have  organized  in  trade 
unions  to  protect  their  interests  and  put  them  on 
an  equality  with  organized  capital  in  their  bar- 
gaining. They  have  organized  in  trade  unions  in 
order  that  labor  may  act  as  a  body  in  its  bargain 
with  capital  acting  as  a  body  in  its  bargaining.  I 
think  they  have  done  well.  If  I  were  a  working- 
man,  I  should  desire  to  join  the  trade  union  of 
my  trade,  though  whether  I  joined  or  not  would 
depend  somewhat,  I  am  sure,  on  what  kind  of  a 
union  it  happened  to  be.  Trade  unions  have  raised 
wages,  improved  conditions,  shortened  hours, 
called  public  attention  to  labor  conditions  that 
were  intolerable,  helped  to  lessen  the  hours  of 
woman's  labor,  helped  to  get  children  out  of  the 
factory  and  the  mine,  produced  a  spirit  of  co- 
operation among  workingmen,  and  promoted  ar- 
bitration for  the  settlement  of  labor  disputes.  All 


PRESENT    CONDITIONS  IN  INDUSTRY    107 

this  labor  unions  have  done.  But  labor  unions  in 
competitive  bargaining  with  capitalistic  unions 
do  not  constitute  the  consummation  of  industrial 
democracy. 

The  democracy  of  America  is  two  democracies, 
one  individual,  one  social;  one  inherited  from 
France  and  pagan  Rome,  the  other  inherited  from 
the  Puritans  and  the  Hebrew  Commonwealth. 
Out  of  these  two  democracies  this  present  Ameri- 
can democracy  of  the  twentieth  century  has  grown, 
gradually  and  increasingly  taking  on  the  social 
aspect ;  so  that  we  are  no  longer  trying  in  this 
country  to  develop  merely  a  community  of  indi- 
viduals governing  themselves,  we  are  attempting 
to  create  a  self-governing  community,  a  com- 
munity that  cooperates  and  combines  in  opera- 
tion for  its  common  interest.  That  is  not  accom- 
plished by  organizing  all  the  workingmen  on  the 
one  side  and  all  the  capitalists  on  the  other  side, 
that  they  may  drive  their  bargains  with  each  other 
on  something  like  equal  terms.  That  is  not  a  self- 
governing  brotherhood.  If  A  has  a  house  to  sell 
and  B  wishes  to  buy  a  house,  it  is  well  enough  for 
A  to  put  what  price  he  pleases  and  B  to  offer  what 
price  he  pleases,  and  let  the  negotiations  go  on  in- 
definitely. But  when  the  owners  of  the  coal  mines 
of  Pennsylvania  are  on  one  side  and  the  coal 
workers  are  on  the  other  side,  and  one  group  says, 


108  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

We  will  not  work  until  you  come  to  our  terms, 
and  the  other  says,  You  shall  not  work  until  you 
come  to  our  terms  —  the  rest  of  us  freeze.  Or  if, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  laborer  says,  Raise  my 
wages  and  add  it  to  your  bill,  and  the  capitalist 
says,  I  will  raise  your  wages  and  add  it  to  my 
bill,  we  get  high  prices,  from  which  the  com- 
munity is  now  suffering.  Peace  brings  one  injury, 
war  brings  the  other.  A  bargain  between  two  in- 
dividuals concerns  only  the  bargainers ;  but  in  a 
bargain  between  ten  thousand  workingmen  and 
ten  thousand  shareholders  in  a  great  corporation 
the  community  is  interested.  And  whether  the 
bargain  is  not  made  at  all,  or  whether  it  is  made 
without  regard  to  the  interests  of  the  general  pub- 
lic, in  either  case  the  general  public  suffers.  Col- 
lective bargaining  furnishes  some  protection  to 
the  individual  laborer  from  the  injustice  which  in- 
evitably follows  from  bargaining  by  an  individual 
laborer  with  organized  capital.  But  it  furnishes  no 
protection  to  the  community.  And  it  does  not 
bring  industrial  peace  or  create  a  true  industrial 
brotherhood. 

The  two  other  remedies  proposed  —  Political 
Socialism  and  Industrial  Democracy — I  shall  con- 
sider in  the  next  two  chapters. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

POLITICAL   SOCIALISM 

THERE  are  two  radical  and  even  revolutionary 
changes  between  which  Democracy  has  to  make 
its  choice,  if  the  spirit  of  Democracy  is  ever  to 
dominate  American  industrial  institutions  :  — the 
first  is  Political  Socialism ;  the  second  is  Industrial 
Democracy.  If  any  of  my  readers  are  inclined 
to  think  that  Political  or  State  Socialism,  as  in 
this  chapter  defined,  is  no  longer  maintained  in 
Socialistic  circles,  I  can  only  say,  first,  that  I 
hope  he  is  right,  but,  second,  that  my  observa- 
tion of  the  currents  of  to-day  leads  me  to  agree 
•with  Edmond  Kelly,  an  advocate  of  a  modified 
Political  Socialism,  in  his  statement,  "  State  So- 
cialism, therefore,  is  the  form  probably  most  in 
vogue  among  workingmen." 1  And  I  believe  the 
best  way  to  meet  it  is  to  define  it  clearly,  and  to 
distinguish  it  from  what  may  be  called  voluntary 
Socialism,  but  what  I  prefer  to  call  "  Industrial 
Democracy."  I  avoid  the  term  State  Socialism 
because  that  term  is  often  used  to  designate  the 
doctrine  of  Bismarck :  "  That  the  State  should 

1  Twentieth  Century  Socialism,  p.  235. 


110  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

take  better  care  of  its  needy  members  than  here- 
tofore is  not  only  a  dictate  of  humaneness  and 
Christianity,  but  also  a  necessity  of  conservative 
politics,  which  should  aim  to  cultivate  in  the  non- 
possessing  classes  of  the  population,  who  are  at 
the  same  time  the  more  numerous  and  least  in- 
structed, the  view  that  the  State  is  not  only  a 
necessary  but  also  a  beneficent  institution."  This 
is  directly  opposed  to  Socialism  which  aims  to 
abolish  the  distinction  between  possessing  and 
non-possessing  classes. 

It  is  as  difficult  to  define  Socialism  as  it  is  to 
define  Orthodoxy ;  whatever  definition  one  offers, 
there  is  sure  to  be  a  Socialist  to  declare  that  the 
definition  is  wrong.  For  there  are  many  types  of 
Socialists.  Among  them  are  some  discontented 
men  who  want  a  larger  share  of  wage  and  a  less 
share  of  work ;  some  cranks  who  think  they  could 
manage  the  universe,  though  they  cannot  manage 
themselves ;  some  idealists  who  dream  beautiful 
dreams,  but  do  not  understand  human  conditions 
or  human  nature ;  some  great  thinkers  who  have 
done  good  work  for  the  world  and  whom  the 
world  ought  to  recognize  as  teachers  and  leaders ; 
and  some  in  whom  these  contradictory  qualities 
are  mingled  in  various  proportions.  And  as  there 
are  many  types  of  Socialists,  so  there  are  many 
varieties  of  Socialism.  I  speak  of  a  single  type 


POLITICAL  SOCIALISM  111 

•when  I  speak  of  Political  Socialism,  and,  in  order 
that  I  may  not  be  accused  of  putting  up  a  man 
of  straw  to  knock  him  down,  I  invite  these  same 
Socialists  to  give  my  readers  their  definition  of 
Socialism  as  they  understand  it. 

Says  Mr.  H.  M.  Hyndman :  "  In  the  end  the 
entire  power  and  means  of  production  will  belong 
to  the  State  or  its  delegates,  who  will  then  be 
like  the  State  itself,  simply  one  great  body  of 
equal  men  organized  to  act  in  concert,  with  lead- 
ers chosen  by  themselves." l 

That  was  in  1883,  my  Socialist  friend  may 
say,  —  twenty-seven  years  ago ;  Socialism  has 
changed  since  then.  Consider,  then,  John  Spar- 
go's  definition,  published  in  1906,  four  years 
ago :  "  In  the  same  general  manner,  we  may  sum- 
marize the  principal  functions  of  the  State  as 
follows  :  the  State  has  the  right  and  the  power 
to  organize  and  control  the  economic  system, 
comprehending  in  that  term  the  production  and 
distribution  of  all  social  wealth,  wherever  private 
enterprise  is  dangerous  to  the  social  well-being, 
or  is  inefficient."  And  he  adds  in  a  note  :  "  I  use 
the  word  '  State'  throughout  in  its  largest,  most 
comprehensive  sense,  as  meaning  the  whole  po- 
litical organization  of  society." 2  According  to 

1  Historical  Basis  of  Socialism  in  England,  p.  457. 
3  Socialism,  p.  219. 


112  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

Socialism  as  thus  defined  by  two  leading  Social- 
ists, the  political  organization  is  to  control  and 
administer  the  industries  of  the  community. 

Those  are  individual  definitions,  my  Social- 
ist friend  will  say.  Then  compare  with  them 
an  official  definition  from  the  German  "  Social 
Democratic  Programme,"  Germany,  October, 
1891:— 

Nothing  but  the  conversion  of  capitalistic  private 
ownership  of  the  means  of  production  —  the  earth,  and 
its  fruits,  mines,  and  quarries,  raw  material,  tools, 
machines,  means  of  exchange  —  into  social  ownership, 
and  the  substitution  of  Socialistic  production,  carried 
on  by  and  for  society  in  the  place  of  the  present  pro- 
duction of  commodities  for  exchange,  can  effect  such 
a  revolution  that,  instead  of  large  industries  and  the 
steadily  growing  capacities  of  common  production  be- 
ing, as  hitherto,  a  source  of  misery  and  oppression  to 
the  classes  whom  they  have  despoiled,  they  may  become 
a  source  of  the  highest  well-being,  and  of  the  most 
perfect  and  comprehensive  harmony.1 

English  Political  Socialism  does  not  differ  from 
Continental  Political  Socialism.  It  is  thus  epito- 
mized by  Jane  T.  Stoddart  in  her  summary  of 
Socialistic  Congresses :  — 

Its  cardinal  principle  is  that  the  State  should  take 

1  The  Erfurt  "  Social  Democratic  Programme  "  of  October, 
1891,  The  Socialists  at  Work,  p.  170. 


POLITICAL  SOCIALISM  113 

out  of  private  ownership  the  means  of  production, 
distribution,  and  exchange.  This  single  sentence  con- 
tains the  quintessence  of  the  creed  drawn  up  at  Social- 
ist Congresses.  The  workers,  as  Socialists  believe,  can 
be  lifted  out  of  their  present  misery  only  by  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  democratic  Work-State.1 

Or,  if  this  epitome  by  an  outsider  is  questioned, 
the  reader  may  take  this,  quoted  by  Professor 
R.  T.  Ely,  from  one  of  its  well-known  leaders : 
"  Perhaps  no  society  of  Socialists  includes  in  its 
membership  a  larger  number  of  highly  educated 
men  than  the  Fabian  Society  of  England.  One  of 
its  members,  Mr.  William  Clarke,  defines  a  So- 
cialist as  'one  who  believes  that  the  necessary 
instruments  of  production  should  be  held  and 
organized  by  the  community,  instead  of  by  indi- 
viduals or  groups  of  individuals,  within  or  out- 
side of  the  community.' "  2 

It  may  be  said  that  the  "community"  is  not 
synonymous  with  the  "State."  That  is  true; 
and  some  Socialists  anticipate  in  the  community 
two  legislative  or  g'wcm-legislative  bodies:  one 
industrial,  the  other  political.  But  neither  is  the 
public  school  district  identical  with  the  town  or 
the  county.  And  yet  we  speak  of  education  by 
the  State  in  modern  democratic  communities  as 

1  The  New  Socialism,  p.  36. 

2  The  Strength  and  Weakness  of  Socialism,  p.  24. 


114  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

contrasted  with  education  by  the  Church  in  the 
mediaeval  feudal  communities.  The  essence  of 
Political  Socialism  is  not  the  machinery  by  which 
the  community  will  do  its  work,  but  the  doctrine 
that  all  the  tools  and  implements  of  organized 
labor  shall  be  owned  by  the  community  and  all  or- 
ganized labor  shall  be  directed  by  the  community ; 
that,  to  quote  again  John  Spargo, "  the  State  has 
the  right  and  the  power  to  organize  and  control  the 
economic  system."  It  is  also  true  that  the  Socialist 
State,  as  it  is  conceived  by  the  Political  Socialist, 
is  in  some  important  respects  unlike  the  modern. 
In  the  view  of  some  Socialists,  all,  or  practically 
all,  the  injustices  which  now  exist  in  society  grow 
out  of  capitalism  —  that  is,  the  private  ownership 
of  means  of  production  —  and  will  disappear 
when  capitalization  disappears  and  all  the  means 
of  production  are  owned  by  the  State.  They  hold, 
therefore,  that  there  will  no  longer  be  any  need 
of  criminal  laws  or  governmental  power  to  pro- 
tect persons  and  property,  and  none  for  taxes 
because  there  will  be  no  governmental  expenses 
to  be  provided  for.  But  this  impossible  vision 
deceives  only  the  Socialists  who  dream;  it  does 
not  deceive  the  Socialists  who  think.  Mr.  Morris 
Hillquit,  himself  a  radical  Socialist,  after  defin- 
ing the  State  by  the  sentence,  "  the  State  makes 
and  enforces  laws  and  levies  taxes,"  goes  on  to 


POLITICAL  SOCIALISM  115 

define  the  Socialist  State  in  the  following  para- 
graph:— 

For  the  purposes  of  public  works,  health,  safety,  and 
relief,  the  Socialist  commonwealth  will  need  vast  ma- 
terial resources,  probably  more  than  the  modern  State, 
and  these  resources,  in  whatever  form  and  under  what- 
ever designation,  can  come  only  from  the  wealth-pro- 
ducing members  of  the  commonwealth  —  thus  there 
must  be  a  direct  or  indirect  tax  on  the  labor  or  income 
of  the  citizen.  The  collection  of  this  tax,  the  direction 
of  the  industries,  and  the  regulation  of  the  relations 
between  the  citizens  will  require  some  laws  and  some 
rules  or  instruments  for  their  enforcement ;  hence,  even 
the  element  of  coercion  cannot  be  entirely  absent  in 
a  Socialist  society,  at  least  not  as  far  as  the  human 
mind  can  at  present  conceive.  The  Socialist  society  aa 
conceived  by  modern  Socialists  differs,  of  course,  very 
radically  from  the  modern  State  in  form  and  substance. 
It  is  not  a  class  State,  it  does  not  serve  any  part  of  the 
population,  and  does  not  rule  any  other  part  of  the 
population ;  it  represents  the  interests  of  the  entire 
community,  and  it  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  entire  com- 
munity that  it  levies  taxes  and  makes  and  enforces 
laws.  It  is  not  the  slave-holding  State,  nor  the  feudal 
State,  nor  the  State  of  the  bourgeoisie  —  it  is  a  Socialist 
State,  but  a  State  nevertheless,  and  since  little  or  no- 
thing can  be  gained  by  inventing  a  new  term,  we  shall 
hereafter  designate  the  proposed  organized  Socialist 
society  as  the  Socialist  State.1 

1  Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice,  pp.  99, 100. 


116  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

Basing  my  definitions  on  those  thus  quoted 
from  the  advocates  of  Socialism,  let  me  give  my 
own.  Political  or  State  Socialism  means  this : 
That  the  city,  or  the  county,  or  the  State,  or  the 
Nation,  or  all  four,  each  in  its  separate  sphere, 
shall  own  all  the  tools  and  implements  of  collec- 
tive industry,  all  the  trolleys,  all  the  railways,  all 
the  factories,  all  the  mines,  all  the  forests,  in  a 
word,  all  those  industrial  enterprises  which  are 
carried  on  by  groups  of  men  acting  together; 
and  this  State  shall  organize  and  direct  this  com- 
plicated industry  as  it  now  organizes  and  directs 
the  army  or  the  post-office ;  and  it  shall  assign 
to  every  one  of  us  his  place  in  this  great  indus- 
trial organization,  and  shall  take  the  proceeds  and 
divide  them  equitably  among  all  the  people. 

The  thoughtful  reader  will  perceive  that  Po- 
litical Socialism  continues  the  wages  system, 
though  in  a  new  form.  Society  will  still  be  divided 
industrially  into  employer  and  employed.  The 
State  will  become  the  employer ;  all  the  citizens  of 
the  State  the  employed.  We  shall  all  be  employees 
working  for  a  wage.  The  work  will  be  assigned  to 
us,  the  wage  determined  for  us  by  our  employer. 
It  is  true  that  the  all,  constituted  as  a  State,  will 
be  the  employer  of  the  all  as  individuals.  In  this 
sense,  and  in  this  sense  only,  will  the  employer 
and  the  employed  be  the  same.  But  in  a  Socialist 


POLITICAL  SOCIALISM  117 

State  all  the  members  of  the  community  would 
be  as  truly  working  under  a  wage  system  as  are 
now  the  post-office  clerks  or  the  host  of  clerical 
employees  at  Washington  or  the  soldiers  in  the 
standing  army.  Each  man's  task  would  be  as- 
signed to  him  by  the  State,  and  by  the  State  the 
hours  and  conditions  of  his  labor  would  be  de- 
termined and  his  wages  allotted. 

This  is  not  industrial  liberty.  It  is  industrial 
servitude  to  a  new  master.  Because  I  believe  in 
industrial  liberty  and  not  in  industrial  servitude 
to  any  master,  I  am  opposed  to  Political  Social- 
ism. "  Conscience  and  honor,"  says  H.  A.  Taine, 
"  everywhere  enjoin  a  man  to  retain  for  himself 
some  portion  of  his  independence."  In  Political 
Socialism  the  individual  retains  none  of  his  in- 
dustrial independence.  "  If,"  continues  M.  Taine, 
"  in  every  modern  constitution  the  domain  of  the 
State  ought  to  be  limited,  it  is  in  modern  democracy 
that  it  should  be  the  most  restricted."  In  Political 
Socialism  the  domain  of  the  State  is  almost  in- 
definitely extended.  What  the  democratic  State 
with  unrestricted  powers  may  do  in  destroying  the 
independence  of  the  individual  M.  Taine  has  well 
shown  in  his"  History  of  the  French  Revolution." 
The  curious  reader  will  find  the  elaborate  restric- 
tions imposed  by  such  a  State  upon  the  industrial 
and  economic  liberty  of  the  individual  illustrated 


118  THE  SPIEIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

in  over  thirty  pages  of  Taine's  "  History  of  the 
French  Resolution."  *  In  this  State  "  the  social 
pact  gives  the  social  body  absolute  power  over 
all  its  members."  The  State  takes  his  products 
of  commerce,  manufacture,  and  agriculture,  takes 
"  grain  from  the  farmer's  barn,  hay  in  the  reaper's 
shed,  cattle  in  the  fold,  wine  in  the  vats,'  hides  at 
the  butcher's,  leather  in  the  tanneries,  soap,  tal- 
low, sugar,  brandy,  cloths,  linens,  and  the  rest, 
in  stores,  depots,  and  warehouses,"  and  pays  for 
them  in  worthless  paper,  and  sometimes  not  at  all. 
It  musters  into  military  service  all  young  men  be- 
tween eighteen  and  twenty-five,  and  condemns  to 
death  whoever  evades  the  military  draft ;  summons 
under  pain  of  imprisonment  all  workmen  who  are 
needed  for  the  service  of  the  State,  installs  them 
and  assigns  them  their  tasks.  It  claims  the  right 
to  close  the  churches,  demolish  the  steeples,  melt 
down  the  bells,  send  all  the  sacred  vessels  to  the 
mint,  proscribe  every  form  of  worship,  exile  the 
priests,  change  the  market  days  so  that  no  Catholics 
shall  be  able  to  buy  fish  on  a  fast  day.  It  claims 
the  right  to  put  limits  on  individual  fortunes,  to 
fix  the  price  at  which  articles  may  be  sold,  to  de- 
termine the  rate  of  wages,  to  enact  that  the  servant 
who  works  for  any  citizen  shall  belong  to  his 
family  and  sit  at  his  table.  In  this  universal  bond- 

1  Volume  iii,  book  6,  chapter  1. 


POLITICAL  SOCIALISM  119 

age  to  the  State  it  claims  the  right  to  dissolve  all 
other  bonds,  as  those  of  employer  to  employed,  of 
worshiper  to  the  Church,  of  husband  and  wife,  of 
parent  and  child.  Marriage  is  held  to  be  simply 
a  civil  contract ;  it  may  be  dissolved  at  any  time 
at  the  option  of  the  parties.  Parental  authority 
is  denied :  "  It  is  cheating  nature  to  enforce  those 
rights  through  constraint.  The  only  right  that 
parents  have  is  their  protection  and  watchful- 
ness." Such  are  some  of  the  claims  of  the  leaders 
of  Democratic  absolutism  in  the  hour  of  its  tem- 
porary victory ;  such  some  of  the  regulations 
which  they  made  during  the  brief  period  of  their 
supremacy.  They  amply  justify  the  warning  of 
Alexis  de  Tocqueville :  If  "  ever  the  free  institu- 
tions of  America  are  destroyed,  that  event  may  be 
attributed  to  the  omnipotence  of  the  majority." 
They  emphasize  the  truth  that  the  absolutism  of 
democracy  is  as  dangerous  as  any  other  form  of 
absolutism,  and  that  it  is  as  necessary  for  the  pro- 
tection of  society  to  limit  the  power  of  a  democratic 
State  as  it  is  to  limit  the  power  of  an  individual 
monarch. 

That  Political  Socialism  demands,  on  the  one 
hand,  a  great  extension  of  the  functions  of  gov- 
ernment, and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  practical 
abolition  of  all  checks  on  the  power  of  the  ma- 
jority, is  sufficiently  illustrated  by  a  reference  to 


120  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

the  platform  of  the  Socialist  party  of  the  United 
States  in  the  last  Presidential  election.  That  plat- 
form demanded  as  immediate  measures  "  the  col- 
lective ownership  of  all  railways,  telegraphs,  tele- 
phones, steamship  lines,  and  all  other  means  of 
social  transportation  and  communication";  "the 
collective  ownership  of  all  industries  which  are 
organized  on  a  National  scale,  and  in  which  com- 
petition has  virtually  ceased  to  exist "  ;  and  the 
perpetual  public  ownership,  and  by  implication 
cultivation,  of  all  mines,  quarries,  forests,  and 
water-power.  And  it  also  demanded  the  abolition 
of  the  Senate,  and  of  the  power  of  the  Supreme 
Court  to  pass  upon  the  constitutionality  of  legis- 
lation enacted  by  Congress,  power  of  the  majority 
to  amend  the  Constitution,  and  the  election  of  all 
judges  by  the  people  for  short  terms.  Aftd  these 
immediate  measures  were  declared  to  be  "  but 
a  preparation  of  the  workers  to  seize  the  whole 
power  of  government,  in  order  that  they  may 
thereby  lay  hold  of  the  whole  system  of  industry, 
and  thus  qome  to  their  rightful  inheritance." 
This  last  sentence  appears  to  me  to  be  a  very 
clear  definition  of  the  aims  of  Political  Socialism 
and  a  striking  illustration  of  that  "  omnipotence 
of  the  majority"  which  Taine,  over  half  a  century 
ago,  declared  to  be  the  greatest  peril  to  America's 
free  institutions. 


POLITICAL  SOCIALISM  121 

That  the  Socialist  State  would  infringe  individ- 
ual liberty  is  frankly  conceded  by  some  Socialis- 
tic writers.  Thus  Karl  Kautsky  says :  "  It  is  true 
enough  that  Socialistic  production  is  incompat- 
ible with  full  freedom  of  work ;  i.  e.,  with  the  free- 
dom of  the  laborer  to  work  where,  when,  and  as  he 
wills.  But  this  freedom  of  the  workman  is  impossi- 
ble under  any  organized  association  of  laborers, 
whether  founded  on  capitalistic  or  collectivist 
principles."  Similarly,  Antoine  Menger  says: 
"  We  should  be  wrong,  however,  if  we  rejected 
entirely  the  idea  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  these 
objections.  While  it  is  certain  that  for  the  com- 
munity as  a  whole  the  lessening  of  economic 
freedom  is  not  necessarily  bound  up  with  the 
democratic  Work-State,  the  danger  does  undoubt- 
edly exist  that  this  form  of  Government  should 
misuse  its  great  economic  powers  for  the  enslave- 
ment of  the  individual,  as  the  present  individu- 
alistic Power-State  misuses  its  political  supre- 
macy." But  perhaps  the  most  striking  of  these 
testimonies  to  the  possible  despotism  which  might 
arise  in  a  Socialistic  State  is  this  programme  laid 
down  by  M.  Deslinieres :  — 

(a)  The  granting  of  arms  to  the  executive  gov- 
ernment for  the  prevention  of  all  disorder  from  the 
beginning.  This  right  is  to  be  used  with  extreme  mod- 
eration. 


122  THE  SPIKIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

(5)  The  suspension  of  the  liberty  of  the  press  and 
of  public  meeting  at  the  will  of  the  government. 

(c)  The  restoration  to  the  government  of  the  right 
of  appointing  municipal  bodies. 

(e£)  All  men  of  full  age  who  have  not  yet  reached 
the  age  of  retirement  are  to  be  required  to  work  in  the 
public  service,  in  return  for  a  fair  salary. 

(e)  For  those  who  refuse,  the  punishment  will  be 
confiscation  of  all  income  above  the  wage  of  a  journey- 
man of  the  third  class ;  for  those  with  a  smaller  in- 
come, enrollment  among  the  pensionaries  of  the  social 
poor  law. 

(f)  Any  one  who,  without  permission  from  the 
government,  lives  more  than  three  months  abroad  is 
to  lose  his  national  rights  and  his  property.1 

It  is  true  that  the  advocates  of  Political  So- 
cialism indignantly  deny  that  it  infringes  indi- 
vidual liberty.  But  after  a  somewhat  careful 
study  of  their  denials  I  cannot  see  that  they  do 
anything  more  than  show  that  capitalism  also 
infringes  individual  liberty.  Their  general  con- 
clusion amounts  to  that  frankly  avowed  by  Karl 
Kautsky,  that  "the  freedom  of  the  laborer  to 
work  where,  when,  and  as  he  wills  "  is  impos- 
sible under  any  system.  Mr.  Edmond  Kelly2 
does  indeed  argue,  with  elaborate  comparative 

1  All  these  quotations  are   taken  from  Jane  T.  Stoddart's 
book,  The  New  Socialism,  chapter  7. 

2  Twentieth  Century  Socialism,  pp.  227-234. 


POLITICAL  SOCIALISM  123 

statistics,  that  a  work-day  of  four  hours  would  be 
sufficient  in  the  Socialist  State  for  self-support, 
giving  the  rest  of  the  waking  hours  for  leisure. 
But  leisure  for  twelve  hours  is  not  liberty  for 
sixteen.  A  slave  is  not  a  free  man  because  the 
master  who  allots  him  his  tasks  and  gives  him 
his  support  only  requires  four  hours  a  day  to  the 
task  allotted. 

This  sacrifice  of  liberty  in  the  Socialist  State 
is  supposed  to  be  compensated  for  by  the  at- 
tainment of  justice.  The  motto  of  democracy  is 
liberty,  equality,  fraternity.  By  this  Socialistic 
programme  liberty  is  thrown  overboard  in  order 
that  equality  and  fraternity  may  be  retained.  I 
believe  that  no  equality  or  fraternity  can  exist 
that  is  not  founded  on  justice,  and  that  the 
Socialistic  State  would  sacrifice  justice  as  well  as 
liberty.  There  is  neither  equality  nor  fraternity 
in  a  state  of  Society  in  which  the  individual  is 
denied  his  natural  rights,  and  these  the  Socialist 
State  does  deny. 

The  Socialist  State  organizes  all  the  industries, 
employs  all  the  workers,  allots  them  their  tasks, 
assigns  them  their  wages,  and  divides  to  the 
members  of  the  community  the  product  of  the 
labor.  How  shall  this  product  be  divided?  Upon 
this  question  State  Socialists  are  not  agreed. 
But  every  scheme  of  division  which  they  have 


124  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

proposed  threatens  to  violate  fundamental  human 
rights. 

One  scheme  proposes  as  the  principle  of  divi- 
sion, "  From  every  man  according  to  his  ability, 
to  every  man  according  to  his  need."  To  so 
modern  and  clear-minded  a  writer  as  Morris 
Hillquit  this  appears  to  be  the  ideal.  "  To  the 
Socialists,"  he  says,  "  the  old  communistic  motto, 
1  From  each  according  to  his  ability,  to  each  ac- 
cording to  his  needs,'  generally  appears  as  the 
ideal  rule  of  distribution  in  an  enlightened  hu- 
man society,  and  quite  likely  the  time  will  come 
when  that  high  standard  will  be  generally  adopted 
by  civilized  communities."1  High  standard  of 
what  ?  Social  justice  ?  No !  That  is  a  principle 
of  generosity,  not  of  justice.  Justice  requires 
that  society  should  secure  to  me  what  is  my  own. 
Generosity  pleads  with  me  to  use  what  is  my 
own  for  the  benefit  of  my  less  fortunate  neigh- 
bor. For  society  to  take  from  me  the  product  of 
my  labor  and  give  it  to  one  who  is  more  needy 
than  I  am  is  neither  justice  nor  generosity. 

What  the  individual  produces  by  his  unaided 
labor  is  his.  It  belongs  to  him  because  he  has 
projected  himself  into  it,  and  it  is  thus,  as  it  were, 
a  part  of  himself.  The  tailor  makes  two  over- 
coats. They  are  his  because  they  are  the  product 

1  Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice,  p.  117. 


POLITICAL  SOCIALISM  125 

of  his  industry.  He  is  wearing  one  and  carrying 
the  other  over  his  arm  when  a  strange  man  ap- 
proaches him  and  takes  the  second  overcoat  from 
him,  saying,  "  I  have  no  overcoat,  you  have  two ; 
I  will  take  the  second  overcoat  from  you  on  the 
principle  '  From  every  man  according  to  his  abil- 
ity, to  every  man  according  to  his  need.' "  That 
is  highway  robbery.  Or  the  tailor  hangs  his  two 
overcoats  on  the  hat-tree  in  his  hall.  A  man  who 
has  no  overcoat  creeps  into  the  hall,  takes  one 
from  the  hat-tree  and  carries  it  off.  He  is  acting 
on  the  principle  "  From  every  man  according  to 
his  ability,  to  every  man  according  to  his  need." 
That  is  thieving.  Observe,  I  do  not  say  that 
Political  Socialism  is  either  highway  robbery  or 
thieving  ;  I  say  that  it  has  in  it  the  same  element 
of  injustice  in  that  it  takes  from  the  man  his 
property  without  his  consent  and  without  com- 
pensation ;  and  that  is  always  unjust.  Or  the 
State  comes  into  the  tailor's  house  and  takes 
one  of  his  overcoats  and  gives  it  to  his  unpro- 
vided neighbor,  and  justifies  the  act  by  the 
motto,  "  From  every  man  according  to  his  ability, 
to  every  man  according  to  his  need."  That  is 
Political  Socialism  —  in  one  of  its  forms.  What 
I  have  produced  by  my  labor  no  man,  no  body 
of  men,  no  State,  has  a  right  to  take  from  me 
without  giving  me  adequate  compensation  for  it. 


126  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

My  Socialistic  friend  says,  Does  not  the  State 
take  your  property  by  taxation  ?  Yes,  and  it 
gives  me  the  protection  of  a  just  Government  in 
compensation.  If  it  does  not  give  me  such  pro- 
tection, then  the  State  is  a  robber.  Or  he  says  : 
Does  not  the  capitalist  take  the  laborer's  pro- 
duct, give  him  what  the  capitalist  thinks,  or  ap- 
pears to  think,  is  a  just  return  for  the  labor,  and 
keep  the  rest  of  the  product  for  himself  ?  Yes ! 
And  that  is  the  reason  why  I  object  to  capitalism. 
And  the  injustice  involved  in  the  capitalist  tak- 
ing the  labor  product,  paying  a  wage  for  the  la- 
bor, and  appropriating  the  rest  of  the  product  as 
he  thinks  best  is  not  cured  by  having  the  State 
take  the  labor  product,  pay  a  wage  for  the  labor, 
and  appropriate  the  rest  as  the  State  thinks  best. 
A  second  method  of  distribution  is  thus  stated 
by  Annie  Besant :  — 

Since  in  public  affairs  ethics  are  apt  to  go  to  the  wall 
and  appeals  to  social  justice  too*often  fall  on  deaf  ears, 
it  is  lucky  that  in  this  case  ethics  and  convenience  co- 
incide. The  impossibility  of  estimating  the  separate 
value  of  each  man's  labor  with  any  really  valid  result, 
the  friction  which  would  arise,  the  jealousies  which 
would  be  provoked,  the  inevitable  discontent,  favorit- 
ism, and  jobbery  that  would  prevail :  all  these  things 
will  drive  the  Communal  Council  into  the  right  path, 
equal  remuneration  for  all  workers.1 

1  The  Fabian  Essays  on  Socialism,  pp.  148,  149. 


POLITICAL  SOCIALISM  127 

Annie  Besant  is  not  an  authority  on  Socialism, 
and  "  equal  remuneration  for  all  workers  "  finds 
few  advocates  among  Socialistic  writers,  though 
it  is  stated  by  Jessica  Peixotto  to  be  in  the  pro- 
gramme of  the  Modern  French  Socialists.1  It  is 
by  no  means  certain  that  it  would  not  find  many 
advocates  among  the  workers  in  a  Socialist  State. 
The  fact  that  the  somewhat  similar  motto, "  Equal 
wages  for  equal  work," — the  equality  of  work 
being  determined  by  the  official  position  occu- 
pied and  the  hours  spent,  —  was  enthusiastically 
advocated  as  a  principle  of  absolute  justice  by 
a  large  number  of  schoolteachers  in  New  York 
City,  is  ominously  significant.  Whatever  may  be 
said  of  that  motto,  Mrs.  Besant's  "  Equal  remu- 
neration for  all  workers"  is  palpably  unjust. 
The  worker  is  entitled  to  be  paid  for  his  work 
according  to  the  benefit  which  he  confers,  not 
according  to  the  time  during  which  he  is  em- 
ployed. The  bank  president's  work  is  worth  more 
to  the  community  than  the  bank  porter's  work. 
Justice  demands  that  each  man  should  receive 
the  product  of  his  labor  because  it  is  his  labor. 
If  that  is  impossible,  then  he  should  receive  its 
equivalent. 

1  "  The  average  labor  hour  is  the  unit  of  value,  and  all  distri- 
bution and  exchange  will  take  place  on  the  basis  of  such  a  unit 
of  value."  —  Jessica  Peixotto,  The  French  Revolution  and  Mod- 
ern French  Socialism,  p.  354. 


128  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

To  secure  to  each  worker  such  a  just  equiva- 
lent for  his  work  some  Socialists  propose  to  con- 
stitute a  Board  or  Council  which  would  take  all 
that  is  produced  by  the  organized  labor  of  the 
State,  sell  it,  and  divide  the*  proceeds  among  the 
workingmen  as  the  Boa'rd  might  deem  equitable. 
The  practical  objections  which  Mrs.  Besant  tersely 
presents  to  that  scheme,  #  the  jealousies  which 
would  be  provoked,  ,the  inevitable  discontent, 
favoritism,  and  jobbery  that  would  prevail,"  are 
impliedly  recognized  by  other  Socialistic  writers. 
Mr.  Edmond  Kelly  thinks  that  "  it  will  be  indis- 
pensable to  submit  these  matters  to  an  industrial 
parliament  in  which  every  industry  will  be  repre- 
sented." i  He  does  not  explain  why  it  will  be  in- 
dispensable, but  we  may  assume  that  his  objec- 
tion to  an  administrative  board  is  the  one  assigned 
by  Mrs.  Besant.  But  past  political  experience  does 
not  indicate  that  parliaments  are  immune  from 
jealousies  and  jobbery.  A  principal  objection  to 
a  protective%  tariff  is  the  fact  that  the  various  in- 
terests represented  in  Congress  struggle  each  for 
the  largest  possible  share  in  the  protection.  One 
is  appalled  in  imagining  what  would  be  the  con- 
ditions in  an  industrial  parliament  whose  main 
business  it  would  be  to  divide  the  proceeds  of 
the  industry  of  the  Socialist  State  among  all 

1  Twentieth  Century  Socialism,  p.  305. 


POLITICAL  SOCIALISM  129 

the  officials  and  the  workers  in  the  socialized 
industry. 

Finally,  some  Socialistic  writers  pass  by  the 
question  how  the  proceeds  of  industry  shall  be 
distributed  in  the  Socialist  State  with  the  air  of 
"  we  will  cross  that  bridge  when  we  come  to  it." 
But  we  have  already  come  to  it.  It  is  the  crux 
of  the  whole  question.  The  only  reason  for  any 
form  of  Socialism  is  the  fact  that  under  our  pre- 
sent industrial  system  the  rewards  of  labor  are 
unevenly  distributed.  He  who  proposes  to  us  a 
better  system  must  make  it  clear  to  us  that  his 
proposal  involves  a  better  distribution.  The  whole 
labor  problem  is  nothing  else  than  this :  How  in 
organized  industry  should  the  product  be  shared 
by  those  who  are  engaged  in  it  ?  In  our  modern 
complicated  society  the  laborer  cannot  avail  him- 
self of  the  product  of  his  labor.  The  chef  in  a 
hotel  cannot  eat  all  the  food  he  cooks,  the  tailor 
cannot  wear  all  the  clothes  he  makes,  the  shoe- 
maker in  a  factory  cannot  use  the  eyeholes  which 
he  punches  in  the  shoes  for  the  shoe-strings,  nor 
can  the  tanner  use  the  skins  which  he  cures. 
Since  the  workman  cannot  receive  the  product 
of  his  labor,  justice  demands  that  he  should  re- 
ceive the  equivalent  for  that  product.  The  labor 
problem  reduced  to  its  simplest  terms  is  this :  In 
what  proportion  should  the  value  of  an  article 


130  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

made  by  a  score  of  cooperating  workers  be  divided 
among  them?  To  give  it  all  to  the  tool-owner 
and  leave  him  to  give  what  he  will  or  what  he 
can  be  made  to  give  to  the  laborer  is  unjust.  To 
require  every  man  to  contribute  all  he  can  and 
allow  him  to  take  only  what  he  needs  is  unjust. 
To  give  an  equal  share  to  every  worker  regard- 
less of  what  he  has  produced  is  unjust.  To  unite 
all  the  workers  in  any  community  in  one  great 
industrial  corporation,  and  to  have  a  Board  of 
Directors  elected  by  the  stockholders  —  that  is, 
all  the  citizens  in  the  community  —  to  divide  the 
product  as  they  think  best,  is  at  least  an  attempt 
to  secure  justice.  But  past  political  experience 
does  not  justify  the  sanguine  hopes  of  those  who 
expect  that  it  will  in  fact  produce  a  just  result. 

I  do  not  object  to  Political  or  State  Socialism 
because  it  is  an  impossible  ideal  ;  I  do  not  think 
that  any  true  ideal  is  impossible.  Whatever  ought 
to  be  done  can  be  done.  My  objection  to  State 
or  Political  Socialism  is  that  it  is  not  an  ideal ; 
that  it  is  the  reverse  of  an  ideal ;  that  it  would 
be  unjust  and  injurious  to  all  concerned ;  that  it 
would  take  the  community  out  of  a  rather  un- 
comfortable frying-pan  and  put  it  into  an  intoler- 
ably hot  fire.  Whatever  evils  exist  in  the  present 
industrial  system  —  and  I  think  there  are  such 
evils  and  that  they  are  very  great  —  will  be  cured, 


POLITICAL  SOCIALISM  131 

not  by  a  denial  of  the  fundamental  rights  of 
men,  but  by  a  clear  recognition  and  a  better  pro- 
tection of  those  rights ;  not  by  the  destruction 
of  industrial  liberty,  but  by  the  development  of 
industrial  liberty ;  not  by  a  continuance  of  the 
wages  system  with  the  State  the  only  employer 
and  all  citizens  wage-earners,  but  by  the  substi- 
tution for  the  wages  system,  in  which  a  few  men 
own  the  tools  and  implements  of  industry  and 
the  many  work  with  them,  a  system  of  Indus- 
trial Democracy,  in  which  the  tool-owners  will  be 
workers,  and  the  workers  will  be  tool-owners ;  a 
state  of  society  in  which  the  present  division  into 
two  classes  of  capitalists  and  laborers  will  come 
to  an  end  because  the  capitalists  will  become 
laborers  and  the  laborers  will  become  capitalists. 
One  may  call  this  Socialism  if  he  will.  But  it  is 
voluntary,  not  compulsory  Socialism.  It  does  not 
sacrifice  individual  liberty  to  organization,  but 
makes  organization  at  once  the  product  and  the 
instrument  of  individual  liberty. 


CHAPTER  IX 

INDUSTRIAL   DEMOCRACY 

THE  real  and  radical  remedy  for  the  evils  of  capi- 
talism is  the  organization  of  an  industrial  system 
in  which  the  laborers,  or  tool-users,  will  them- 
selves become  the  capitalists,  or  tool-owners,  — in 
which,  therefore,  the  class  distinction  which  exists 
under  capitalism  will  be  abolished.  This  is  some- 
times called  Socialism.  Thus  Mr.  Thomas  Kirkup, 
the  author  of  the  well-known  article  in  the  En- 
cyclopaedia Britannica  on  Socialism,  defines  the 
system  in  the  following  sentences :  "  Whereas  in- 
dustry is  at  present  carried  on  by  private  capital- 
ists served  by  wage-labor,  it  must  in  the  future 
be  conducted  by  associated  or  cooperating  work- 
men jointly  owning  the  means  of  production.  We 
believe,  on  grounds  both  of  theory  and  history, 
that  this  must  be  accepted  as  the  cardinal  prin- 
ciple of  Socialism.  .  .  .  Against  the  evils  arising 
from  the  practical  and  virtual  monopoly  of  land 
and  capital  by  the  few,  society  would  protect  itself 
by  a  system  of  joint  ownership  of  the  means  of 
production,  and  against  the  evils  of  unlimited 
competition,  by  the  principle  of  associated  labor 


INDUSTRIAL  DEMOCRACY  133 

systematically  working  for  the  general  good." x 
It  is  evident,  however,  that  this  is  something  very 
different  from  Political  Socialism,  and  Mr.  Kirkup 
makes  this  distinction  very  clear  in  his  volume. 
To  avoid  that  confusion  which  inevitably  arises 
from  using  the  same  word  to  distinguish  two 
radically  different  systems,  I  call  this  phase  of 
Socialism  "  Industrial  Democracy."  Let  me  first 
make  the  difference  between  the  two  systems 
clear  to  the  reader. 

A  great  cotton  factory  employs,  let  us  say,  a 
thousand  hands,  and  is  owned  jointly  by  a  thou- 
sand stockholders.  The  stockholders  own  the 
tools  and  implements  with  which  the  business  is 
carried  on,  the  wage-earners  are  dependent  on 
the  consent  of  these  stockholders  for  the  right  to 
carry  on  the  business.  It  is  evident  that  if  the 
thousand  employees  should  become  the  thousand 
stockholders,  the  factory  would  no  longer  be  an 
autocratic  institution ;  it  would  be  democratic.  The 
workers  with  the  tools  would  be  the  owners  of 
the  tools  and  would  direct  the  management  of  the 
industry.  It  is  also  evident  from  history  that 
State  control  is  not  the  same  as  liberty,  even 
though  the  State  be  democratic  in  its  Constitu- 
tion. In  England  the  State  controls  and,  to  some 
extent,  supports  the  Church,  but  it  is  the  churches 

1  An  Inquiry  into  Socialism,  p.  105. 


134  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

that  are  not  owned  or  controlled  by  the  State 
that  are  known  as  Free  Churches.  When  in  demo- 
cratic New  England  the  Puritan  State  controlled 
the  Church,  when  in  democratic  Virginia  the 
Episcopal  Church  was  controlled  by  the  State, 
religion  was  not  free.  Freedom  came  when  the 
Church  was  emancipated  from  control  by  the 
State,  and  those  who  worshiped  in  the  Church 
were  given  control  of  the  Church.  Industry  will 
not  be  made  free  by  making  the  State  the  owner 
of  the  railways,  the  mines,  and  the  factories.  It 
will  be  made  free  when  the  men  who  work  on  the 
railways,  in  the  mines,  and  in  the  factories  own 
the  tools  and  the  implements  of  their  industry; 
in  other  words,  become  the  capitalists. 

Does  the  reader  say,  This  is  an  unpractical 
ideal?  I  reply,  that  it  is  not  only  practical  but 
practiced.  It  is  not  only  possible  for  the  same 
man  to  be  capitalist  and  workingman,  it  is  a  com- 
mon experience.  A  concrete  illustration  helps  to 
make  clear  a  general  principle.  I  have  a  little 
stock  in  The  Outlook  Publishing  Company;  to 
that  extent  I  am  a  capitalist.  I  am  one  of  the 
directors  of  The  Outlook  Publishing  Company ; 
to  that  extent  I  am  an  employer  of  labor.  I  am 
a  wage-earner  in  the  Outlook  Company ;  so  I  be- 
long with  the  laboring  classes.  It  is  quite  possi- 
ble that  I  might,  as  a  wage-earner,  desire  a  larger 


INDUSTRIAL  DEMOCRACY  135 

salary  than  I,  as  Director,  think  it  prudent  to  give; 
but  even  in  that  case  I  could  hardly  get  up  a  very 
serious  quarrel  with  myself  on  the  subject.  Many 
of  our  bank  presidents,  railway  officials,  and  fac- 
tory managers  are  capitalists,  managers,  and 
wage-earners.  What  I  look  forward  to  is  the  time 
coming  when  what  is  now  the  exception  will  be- 
come the  rule ;  when  the  great  mass  of  wage- 
earners  will  become  capitalists,  and  will,  as  capi- 
talists, elect  the  managers  to  direct  the  enterprises 
in  which  they  are  engaged.  When  my  friend  says 
to  me,  That  is  an  impossible  dream,  I  reply, 
Nothing  is  impossible  that  is  right.  More  than 
that,  I  can  see  in  the  history  about  me  move- 
ments that  are  tending  to  this  consummation. 
Those  movements  wise  men  will  endeavor  to 
guide,  perhaps  to  expedite,  but  not  to  halt  or 
hinder. 

We  are  beginning  to  see  that  the  common  peo- 
ple are  already  capitalists  if  their  rights  are  ac- 
corded to  them.  A  commonwealth  owns  wealth 
in  common.  A  first  step  toward  industrial  de- 
mocracy is  securing  to  the  common  people  this 
wealth  which  by  right  belongs  to  them. 

It  must  be  nearly  forty  years  ago  that  Senator 
Booth,  of  California,  put  the  railway  problem  in  a 
sentence  :  Formerly  the  means  of  locomotion  were 
poor  and  the  highways  were  public  property; 


136  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

now  the  means  of  locomotion  are  admirable  and 
the  highways  are  private  property.  We  have  com- 
paratively recently  discovered  that  the  highways 
ought  not  to  be  private  property ;  that  if  they 
are  operated  as  private  property  for  private  inter- 
ests, public  interests  are  sure  to  suffer.  Since  this 
book  was  commenced  the  railways  have  practi- 
cally agreed  with  the  President  of  the  United 
States  that  in  the  future  the  alteration  in  the 
rates  which  they  charge  for  carrying  freight  and 
passengers  over  these  highways  shall  be  sub- 
mitted to,  and  approved  by,  the  Government  — 
that  is,  by  representatives  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  —  before  the  change  is  put  in  op- 
eration. The  railways  themselves  have  come  to 
see  that  it  is  not  even  for  the  interest  of  the  own- 
ers of  the  property  that  it  shall  be  operated  under 
purely  private  direction  and  for  purely  private 
interests. 

It  does  not  follow  that  because  the  highways 
of  right  belong  to  the  people  that  the  people 
must  manage  them.  The  Constitution  provides 
that  the  United  States  shall  have  power  "to  coin 
money,  regulate  the  value  thereof,  and  of  foreign 
coin."  The  United  States  has  delegated  to  pri- 
vate banks  the  right  to  issue  the  currency  on 
which  the  people  depend  for  their  interchange  of 
commodities  —  in  other  words,  to  manage  the 


INDUSTRIAL  DEMOCRACY  137 

banking ;  but  it  has  brought  these  private  banks 
under  such  Governmental  control  that  they  are 
operated  for  the  benefit  of  the  public,  and  the 
value  of  the  money  which  they  issue  is  as  secure 
as  if  it  were  issued  by  the  Government  itself. 
Thus  in  our  banking  we  have  a  combination  of 
private  interests  and  public  regulation  cooperating 
to  promote  the  public  welfare.  It  is  not  only  en- 
tirely conceivable  but  highly  probable  that  we  can 
work  out  in  somewhat  similar  fashion  a  method 
by  which  the  railways  will  be  operated  by  private 
enterprise  under  Governmental  regulation  so  as 
to  promote  the  interests  both  of  the  private  own- 
ers and  the  public  users  of  the  highways.  What- 
ever may  be  the  solution  of  the  problem,  we  have 
already  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  public  has 
a  quasi  ownership  in  the  public  highways,  or,  at 
least,  that  right  of  regulation  and  control  which 
we  are  accustomed  to  connect  with  ownership. 

In  a  previous  chapter  I  have  insisted  that  every 
individual  is  justly  entitled  to  the  product  of  his 
labor.  He  is  not  justly  entitled  to  anything  but 
the  product  of  his  labor,  except  as  he  derives  his 
title  thereto  from  the  voluntary  act  of  the  com- 
munity. He  is  not  entitled  to  ownership  in  the 
sunshine,  or  the  air,  or  the  ocean,  or  the  navi- 
gable rivers.  This  is  universally  conceded.  He 
has  no  more  right  to  private  ownership  in  the 


138  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

unnavigable  rivers  than  in  the  rivers  that  are 
navigable ;  no  more  right  in  the  soil  and  its  con- 
tents than  in  the  ocean  and  its  contents.  What- 
ever rights  to  navigable  rivers  and  the  soil  he 
possesses  he  has  derived,  not  from  his  own  ex- 
ertions, but  from  the  action  of  the  community 
to  which  the  soil  and  the  rivers  belong.  This  is 
not  the  affirmation  of  a  radical  or  Socialistic  re- 
former, it  is  the  affirmation  of  English  and  Amer- 
ican law.  For  the  convenience  of  the  reader  I 
will  turn  here,  not  to  the  law  books,  but  to  the 
encyclopaedias,  which  give  in  compact  form  the 
principles  laid  down  in  the  law  books :  — 

There  is  no  such  thing  as  absolute  property  in  land, 
says  the  chief  English  writer  on  that  subject ;  a  man 
can  only  have  an  estate  or  interest  in  land.  Every 
landowner,  in  the  popular  sense  of  the  phrase,  is,  in 
the  eyes  of  the  law,  a  tenant  only;  and  such  is  the 
case  with  the  largest  and  most  unlimited  interests 
known  to  the  law  —  that  of  an  estate  in  fee  simple. 
The  owner  in  fee  is  the  tenant  of  some  one  else,  who, 
in  his  turn,  is  the  tenant  of  another,  and  so  on,  until 
the  last  and  only  absolute  owner  is  reached,  viz.,  the 
King,  from  whom  directly  or  indirectly  all  lands  are 
held.1 

This  principle  is  equally  recognized  in  Ameri- 
can law :  — 

1  Encyclopcedia  Britannica,  "  Feudalism,"  p.  107. 


INDUSTRIAL  DEMOCRACY  139 

Personal  property  was  left,  as  in  other  legal  systems, 
subject  to  ownership  in  the  full  sense  of  that  term. 
But  real  property  could  only  be  "held"  of  some  one 
else  and  in  subordination  to  the  rights  of  a  superior 
holder.  We  have,  therefore,  landholders,  not  land- 
owners. The  distinction  is  of  fundamental  and  far- 
reaching  importance.  The  only  owner  of  the  land  is 
the  King,  the  State.  The  subject  can  have  at  most  an 
estate  in  it,  i.  e.,  a  status  with  reference  to  it.  The 
greatest  estate  possible  —  the  pure  fee  simple  absolute 
—  is  less  than  complete  ownership,  being  a  derivative 
and  subordinate  right,  subject  to  the  superior  claims 
of  him  —  whether  a  private  person  or  the  State  —  of 
whom  the  land  is  held.  Property  in  land,  therefore,  is 
not  the  land  itself,  but  an  estate  of  longer  or  shorter 
duration  in  the  land,  together  with  certain  rights  of 
use  and  enjoyment. 

Nor  are  these  mere  statements  of  abstract  and 
unpractical  principles.  In  fact,  all  land  titles  in 
America  are  derived  from  the  original  owner, 
the  Government.  Land  titles  in  the  East  are 
largely  derived  from  Colonial  grants  by  the  King, 
who  represented  the  people  of  Great  Britain  ; 
land  titles  in  the  West  from  National  grants  by 
the  Federal  Government,  which  also  represented 
the  people.  The  people  were  the  landowners,  and 
they  still  retain  in  Great  Britain,  and  in  all  the 
States  of  the  Union,  a  certain  indefinable  interest 
in  the  land,  and  of  this  legal  interest  they  avail 


140  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

themselves  in  such  public  acts  as  the  taking  of 
real  estate  for  a  public  park  or  a  National  high- 
way, not  at  the  price  for  which  the  owner  chooses 
to  sell  it,  but  at  the  price  which  the  State  thinks 
it  right  to  pay. 

At  the  present  time  the  people  of  the  United 
States  still  own,  absolutely  and  unquestionably 
own,  millions  of  acres  of  land  which  they  have 
never  granted  to  private  parties.  Of  this  land 
they  are  both  the  owners  and  the  holders.  Some 
of  it  is  forest  lands  containing  valuable  tim- 
ber; some  of  it  mining  lands  containing  gold, 
or  silver,  or  copper,  or  iron;  some  of  it  coal 
lands;  and  some  of  it,  at  present,  unfertile  lands 
which  depend  for  their  fertility  on  either  irri- 
gation or  drainage.  The  people  of  the  United 
States  have  recently  waked  up  to  the  fact  that 
they  are  immense  landowners,  and  are  consider- 
ing the  question  how  they  can  make  this  owner- 
ship most  profitable  to  themselves.  Mr.  Roosevelt 
was  not  the  first  to  discover  this  land  ownership, 
or  to  speak  of  it,  but  he  has  spoken  of  it  in 
such  a  way  that  the  whole  Nation  has  listened. 
In  his  address  at  Jamestown,  Virginia,  June  10, 
1907,  he  put  the  whole  so-called  Conservation 
problem  in  a  sentence,  as  "  the  question  of  utiliz- 
ing the  natural  resources  of  the  Nation  in  a  way 
that  will  be  of  the  most  benefit  to  the  Nation  as 


INDUSTRIAL  DEMOCRACY  141 

a  whole."  Whether  the  Nation  shall,  through 
National  agents,  cut  down  the  forest  trees  and 
sell  the  timber,  open  the  mines  and  extract  the 
gold  and  silver  and  copper  and  iron,  operate  the 
coal  mines,  and  retain  the  ownership  of  the 
reclaimed  agricultural  lands  and  rent  them  to 
farmers ;  or  whether  it  shall  pursue  some  other 
method  of  utilizing  the  natural  resources  of  the 
Nation  in  a  way  that  will  be  of  the  most  benefit 
to  the  Nation  as  a  whole,  is  a  question  which  I 
need  not  discuss  here.  Personally,  I  believe  that 
those  results  will  be  best  utilized  for  the  benefit  of 
the  Nation  as  a  whole  by  the  combination  of  pri- 
vate enterprise  and  public  oversight,  such  as  we 
have  already  proved  practicable  in  the  case  of  the 
banks,  and  are  proving  practicable  in  the  case  of 
the  railways.  But  all  I  am  interested  in  doing 
here  is  to  point  out  to  the  reader  that  because 
the  people  of  the  United  States  own  these  forest 
lands,  mining  lands,  coal  lands,  and  agricultural 
lands,  they  are  already  large  capitalists.  Conser- 
vation means  that  they  shall  not  put  this  capital 
up  to  be  raffled  for  and  seized  upon  by  the  most 
enterprising,  energetic,  and  perhaps  unscrupulous. 
In  addition,  many  millions  of  acres  of  land 
which  formerly  belonged  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States  have  been  given  away  or  sold  for 
a  song,  and  are  now  owned  by  private  parties. 


142  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

But  recur  to  the  statement  in  the  American  En- 
cyclopedia :  "  The  greatest  estate  possible  —  the 
pure  fee  simple  absolute  —  is  less  than  complete 
ownership " ;  or  recur  to  the  statement  in  the 
Encyclopaedia  Britannica  :  "  Every  landowner,  in 
the  popular  sense  of  the  phrase,  is,  in  the  eye  of 
the  law,  a  tenant  only."  According,  then,  to  the 
recognized  principles  of  law  as  epitomized  in  these 
two  encyclopaedias,  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  or,  under  our  Constitution,  of  the  indi- 
vidual States,  have  some  interest  in  the  lands 
which  have  passed  into  private  ownership.  It 
was  the  discovery,  or  the  invention,  of  Henry 
George,  though  in  a  sense  he  derived  it  from  ear- 
lier writers,  that  the  people  of  the  State  already 
collected  some  portion  of  this  interest  by  the 
taxes  which  they  levied  on  the  land,  and  it  was 
his  proposition  that  in  the  future  the  people  of 
the  State  should  practically  claim  the  rights  of 
landlord  which  the  law  theoretically  declared  that 
they  possessed,  and  should  levy  on  the  land  a  tax 
equivalent  to  a  fair  rental.  This  rental  would  be 
for  the  land  only,  not  for  the  houses  and  barns 
which  had  been  built  upon  it,  nor  for  the  or- 
chards which  had  been  planted,  nor  for  the  crops 
which  had  been  raised ;  because  the  houses,  and 
barns,  and  orchards,  and  crops  are  the  product  of 
private  industry,  and  therefore  are  private  pro- 


INDUSTRIAL  DEMOCRACY  143 

perty.  The  rental  would  be  adjusted  to  the  value 
of  the  land  in  its  natural  state.  Mr.  Thomas  G. 
Shearman,  in  his  work  on  "Natural  Taxation," 
has  made  a  careful  estimate  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  that  if  such  a  ground  rent  were  collected 
from  the  unimproved  land,  based  on  its  valuation 
as  unimproved,  it  would  be  more  than  sufficient 
to  pay  all  National  and  local  taxes  and  still  leave 
a  considerable  margin  to  the  landholders.1 

While  we  are  thus  coming  to  realize  that  we 
are  already  capitalists,  that  we  have  a  right  of 
quasi  ownership  in  the  railways,  and  unlimited 
ownership  in  millions  of  acres  of  valuable  land, 
and  a  landlord's  interest  in  many  millions  more, 
we  are  also  beginning  to  acquire  ability  to  co- 
operate in  the  management  of  great  estates  by 
means  of  voluntary  organizations.  These  volun- 
tary organizations  are  called  corporations.  A  cor- 
poration, in  its  modern  form,  is  a  democratic  con- 
trivance by  which  a  number  of  property-owners 
put  their  property  together  for  the  sake  of  se- 
curing greater  efficiency  in  administration,  and 
divide  the  profits  of  the  enterprise  between  them 

1  Thomas  G.  Shearman,  Natural  Taxation,  chap,  x,  p.  147: 
"  Thus  all  national  and  local  taxes,  if  collected  exclusively  from 
ground  rents,  would  absorb  only  44^  per  cent  of  those  rents, 
leaving  to  the  owners  of  the  bare  land  a  clear  annual  rent  of 
8763,252,000,  besides  the  absolutely  untaxed  income  from  all  build- 
ings and  improvements  upon  their  land." 


144  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

in  proportion  to  their  respective  investments.  It 
is  thus  a  contrivance  for  both  the  concentration 
and  the  distribution  of  wealth.  It  is  concentra- 
tion in  work;  it  is  distribution  in  enjoyment. 
Silas  Marner  could  in  a  lifetime  lay  by  enough 
out  of  his  scant  wages  to  buy  a  single  loom  with 
which  to  earn  his  daily  bread ;  but  no  man  can 
in  a  single  lifetime  lay  by,  out  of  the  profits  of 
his  unaided  industry,  money  enough  to  buy  a 
great  woolen  mill.  Therefore,  a  number  of  men 
unite,  each  paying  his  share,  conduct  the  woolen 
mill,  and  divide  the  profits  of  the  organized 
weaving.  There  is  thus  ready  to  the  hands  of  the 
Silas  Marners  a  means  for  cooperation,  for  each 
one  of  them  can  own  a  share  in  the  common  tool 
which  they  combine  to  operate,  and  so  share  in 
the  product  of  their  cooperative  industry.  The 
larger  the  corporation  and  the  greater  the  num- 
ber of  stockholders,  the  better  chance  there  is 
for  Silas  Marner  to  become  a  stockholder.  Three 
conditions  are  necessary  to  enable  him  to  become 
thus  a  part  owner  with  his  fellow-laborer  in  the 
tools  which  they  are  using  in  their  joint  indus- 
try:  honest  administration  of  the  corporation; 
facility  for  investment  in  its.  property;  means 
with  which  to  make  the  investment. 

It  is  first  necessary  that  the  corporation  should 
be  administered  honestly ;  that  is,  in  the  interest 


INDUSTRIAL  DEMOCRACY  145 

of  the  owners,  not  in  the  special  interests  of  the 
directors  and  managers.  It  cannot  be  doubted 
that  our  standards  of  commercial  honesty  are  im- 
proving in  America.  Operations  which  twenty- 
five  years  ago  men  admired  as  shrewd  they  now 
denounce  as  dishonest.  For  operations  like  those 
which  netted  millions  of  dollars  to  the  operators 
years  ago,  men  are  now  serving  their  time  under 
criminal  sentence  in  the  State's  prison.  This 
gradual  improvement  in  the  standards  of  honesty 
has  been  accompanied  with  a  demand  for  closer 
Governmental  inspection  of  the  great  corpora- 
tions. The  corporation  tax  law,  recently  passed  by 
Congress,  compels  the  corporations  to  file  their 
financial  reports  at  Washington,  where  they  will 
be  subjected  to  the  inspection  of  the  parties 
interested.  We  no  longer  think  that  men  may 
issue  stock  to  represent  their  property  in  any 
amount  and  sell  it  at  any  price  they  please.  Some 
States  have  already  enacted  £laws  against  stock- 
watering.  Congress  has  failed  to  enact  the  law 
which  was  proposed  to  prevent  the  stock- water- 
ing of  corporations  engaged  in  interstate  com- 
merce; but  we  may  be  pretty  sure  that  a  future 
session  will  enact  it.  If  I  own  a  horse  worth 
$100,  and  offer  it  to  my  neighbor  for  $250, 
there  is  nothing  dishonest  in  the  transaction,  if 
it  is  not  accompanied  with  false  statements, 


146  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

expressed  or  implied.  But  if  I  divide  the  horse 
ownership  into  twenty-five  shares  of  $10  each, 
and  sell  the  stock  to  my  church  for  $250,  and 
the  church  transforms  the  shares  into  $20  each, 
and  raffles  the  horse  at  a  church  fair  for  $500, 
somebody  is  cheated.  The  defense  made  on  stock- 
watering  is  that  it  anticipates  the  future  value 
of  the  property.  If  it  is  a  colt  worth  $100  that 
is  thus  raffled  for  at  $500,  the  transaction  is  still 
dishonest.  The  property  of  a  corporation  should 
be  estimated  at  its  present  real  value,  not  at  its 
imagined  future  value,  and  it  should  be  so  or- 
ganized and  operated  that  every  workingman 
can  put  his  savings  into  its  stock  with  as  much 
safety  as  he  now  puts  them  into  a  savings  bank. 
Not  only  honesty  in  administration  of  the  cor- 
poration, however,  is  necessary,  but  also  facility 
for  investment  in  its  property.  The  workingman 
must  have  a  fair  chance  to  buy  the  stock  in  an 
honestly  managed  corporation.  Corporations  are 
beginning  to  see  that  it  is  for  their  interest  to 
have  the  workingmen  co-capitalists  j  they  are  be- 
ginning to  open  the  door  to  capitalistic  partici- 
pation with  them.  The  most  striking  illustration 
of  this  is  furnished  by  the  United  States  Steel 
Corporation,  nearly  half  of  whose  workingmen 
are  shareholders.  In  the  proportion  in  which 
•workingmen  become  owners  of  stock  they  become 


INDUSTRIAL  DEMOCRACY  147 

owners  of  the  tools  with  which  their  industry  is 
carried  on.  Just  in  that  proportion  the  class  divi- 
sion into  laborers  and  capitalists  begins  to  disap- 
pear. 

But  the  workingman  must  not  only  be  sure 
that  the  corporation  is  honestly  managed,  and  is 
therefore  a  safe  investment,  and  must  not  only 
have  the  opportunity  for  purchasing  stock  and 
so  becoming  a  shareholder,  he  must  have  also 
the  means  with  which  to  purchase.  It  is  reported 
by  the  Comptroller  of  the  Currency  that  there 
were  in  1909  nearly  nine  million  depositors  in  the 
savings  banks  of  the  United  States  who  owned 
therein  $3,713,405,709.  A  considerable  propor- 
tion of  these  depositors  are  wage-earners;  they 
belong  to  the  creditor  class ;  they  are  capitalists 
loaning  their  capital  through  the  savings  banks 
to  the  managers  of  great  enterprises.  When  the 
great  enterprises  are  so  honestly  managed  that 
stock  in  the  enterprise  is  as  safe  as  a  deposit  in 
the  savings  bank,  many  of  these  savings-bank 
depositors  will  become  shareholders  in  the  enter- 
prise which,  by  their  work,  they  are  carrying  on. 
When  every  post-office  in  the  United  States  be- 
comes a  savings  bank,  and  it  is  as  easy  for  the 
workingman  to  deposit  his  money  with  his  Gov- 
ernment for  safe-keeping  as  it  is  now  for  him 
to  send  a  registered  letter,  we  may  reasonably 


148  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

expect  that  the  savings  will  be  greatly  increased 
—  an  expectation  which  is  abundantly  justified 
by  the  history  of  other  countries.  The  anti-saloon 
wave  which  is  springing  up  over  the  country  at 
the  present  time  gives  further  justification  for 
this  faith  in  the  economic  future  of  the  common 
people  of  America.  For  this  movement  is,  in  part 
at  least,  an  economic  one ;  a  protest  against  the 
waste  involved  in  the  drink  traffic ;  a  protest 
against  a  traffic  which  produces,  as  has  been  well 
said,  not  public  wealth,  but  public  illth. 

A  right  to  labor  and  an  opportunity  to  labor 
are  barren  rights  without  capacity  to  labor.  He 
who  can  contribute  to  the  world's  wealth  only 
the  product  of  muscular  toil  contributes  very 
little.  For  science  has  learned  how  to  set  nature's 
forces  to  work,  and  the  muscles  of  man  compete 
at  great  disadvantage  with  the  muscles  of  nature. 
That  is  not  a  healthy  individual  who  labors  only 
with  his  hands  while  his  brain  lies  fallow,  nor  is 
he  healthy  who  labors  only  with  his  brain  while 
his  hands  are  idle.  The  brain  and  the  muscle 
were  given  by  the  Creator  to  the  same  man  that 
he  might  use  them  both.  To  divide  society  into 
brain-workers  and  hand-toilers  is  to  make  a  social 
order  contrary  to  nature.  This  we  are  beginning 
to  see.  Very  slowly  and  afar  off  we  are  follow- 
ing Germany,  whose  recent  unexampled- in dus- 


INDUSTRIAL  DEMOCRACY  149 

trial  development  is  partly  due  to  her  recogni- 
tion of  the  value  of  industrial  education,  which 
occupies  in  her  system  equal  place  with  literary 
education.  When  our  educational  processes,  in- 
tellectual and  moral,  equip  as  thoroughly  and  as 
broadly  for  so-called  industrial  as  for  so-called 
professional  pursuits,  we  shall  give  to  working- 
men  that  equality  of  capacity  which  is  really  es- 
sential to  equality  of  opportunity.  The  progress 
which  we  have  made  and  are  making  in  this  di- 
rection is  one  of  the  hopeful  signs  of  the  times. 
In  my  college  days  there  was  not,  I  believe,  an 
engineering  school  in  the  country,  and  there  was 
practically  no  laboratory  work  in  the  colleges. 
Now  in  all  our  more  progressive  communities 
there  is  the  industrial  as  well  as  the  literary 
High  School.  Thus  democratic  America  is,  in 
spite  of  some  opposition  and  more  indifference, 
gradually  abolishing  what  is  called  the  proleta- 
riat, by  giving  to  all  men  the  opportunity  and 
developing  in  all  men  the  capacity,  intellectual 
and  moral,  to  be  sharers  in  the  wealth  of  the 
community. 

While  in  the  corporations  men  are  learning  to 
cooperate  on  the  basis  of  mutual  trust  and  con- 
fidence in  great  industrial  enterprises,  in  labor 
unions  men  who  live  chiefly  by  the  industry  of 
their  hands  are  learning  how  to  cooperate  on  the 


150  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

basis  of  their  avowed  motto,  "An  injury  to  one 
is  an  injury  to  all;  and  a  benefit  to  one  is  a 
benefit  to  all."  I  have  no  space  here  to  discuss  at 
any  length  the  debit  and  credit  side  of  the  labor 
union.  It  has  its  evils,  and  some  of  them  have 
been  very  serious.  But  it  has  taught  working- 
men  to  cooperate  in  a  common  movement  for 
the  common  good;  it  has  compelled  capitalists 
to  pay  respect  to  workingmen  because  they  have 
become  a  force  that  must  be  reckoned  with ;  it 
has  made  workingmen,  in  a  small  way,  capitalists 
by  contributing  to  the  common  fund,  which  has 
sometimes  reached  considerable  proportions;  it 
has  won  for  the  workingman  shorter  hours,  bet- 
ter wages,  and  improved  conditions  which  other- 
wise he  would  not  have  obtained ;  and,  by  train- 
ing in  habits  of  cooperation  and  combination,  it 
has  laid  the  foundation  for  a  future  perfected 
industrial  democracy.  Perhaps  the  most  valuable 
contribution  to  industrial  democracy  made  by 
the  trade  unions  is  the  increased  respect  for  the 
workingmen  which  they  have  won  from  the  em- 
ployers. For  in  democracy  good  will  is  of  little 
value  unless  it  is  founded  on  respect.  So  far  from 
promoting  future  class  war,  by  the  power  to  wage 
successful  war  which  these  organizations  have 
created,  they  have  laid  solid  foundations  for 
future  and  final  industrial  peace 


INDUSTRIAL  DEMOCRACY  151 

Conservation,  the  single  tax,  the  growth  of 
corporations,  the  beginnings  of  profit-sharing 
through  stockholding,  the  development  of  the 
industrial  virtues,  —  thrift  and  temperance, — 
and  of  industrial  intelligence,  and  the  growth 
of  labor  unions,  are  unconsciously  cooperating 
movements  toward  industrial  democracy.  The 
progress  which  has  been  made  in  the  last  quar- 
ter-century is  little  realized  even  by  students  of 
economic  life.  It  does  not  come  within  the  scope 
of  this  book  to  enter  upon  a  balancing  of  statis- 
tics. I  believe,  however,  in  spite  of  some  indica- 
tions to  the  contrary,  that  we  are  living  in  an  age 
of  increasing  distribution  of  wealth;  that  the 
statement  of  Edward  Bernstein  is  abundantly 
justified :  "  The  number  of  the  possessing  classes 
is  to-day  not  smaller  but  larger.  The  enormous 
increase  of  social  wealth  is  not  accompanied  by  a 
decreasing  number  of  large  capitalists  but  by  an 
increasing  number  of  capitalists  of  all  degrees."  * 
The  French  Revolution  broke  up  the  great  feudal 
estates  of  France  into  small  holdings.  The  recent 
land  legislation  of  Great  Britain  is  producing  the 
same  effect,  at  least  in  Ireland.  The  Civil  War  has 
had  a  similar  tendency  in  the  South,  and  I  am 
informed  on  very  good  authority  that  recently 
emancipated  negroes  now  own  a  total  amount  of 

1  Evolutionary  Socialism,  Introduction,  p.  xi. 


152  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

land  equal  in  area  to  the  whole  of  the  New  Eng- 
land States.  I  have  already  pointed  out  the  fact 
that  the  corporation  makes  possible  the  division 
of  industrial  wealth  among  a  large  number  of 
owners,  and  Mr.  Edward  Bernstein  and  Mr. 
Charles  B.  Spahr  have  shown  that  this  division 
is  actually  taking  place.  Recent  legislation  and 
recent  court  decisions  point  out  to  us  how  we 
can  redistribute  the  wealth  which  has  been  con- 
centrated in  too  few  hands  and  how  we  can 
prevent  such  concentration  in  the  future.  The 
Courts  have  held  that  a  progressive  inheritance 
tax  is  constitutional;  so  eminent  a  capitalist  as 
Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie  has  commended  it  as  in- 
herently just  and  wise.  By  such  a  tax  we  may 
take  from  the  estate  of  the  multi-millionaire  a 
considerable  proportion  of  the  amount  of  wealth 
which  has  really  been  created  largely  by  the  com- 
munity, and  can  return  it  to  the  community 
again.  These  great  accumulations  have  been  for 
the  most  part  made  by  railways  and  by  land 
operations.  We  can  bring,  and  we  are  bringing, 
the  railways  under  such  Governmental  control  as 
will  make  them,  after  paying  a  reasonable  tax  to 
the  owners,  give  the  remainder  of  their  profits 
to  the  public,  either  through  a  franchise  tax  or 
through  lower  rates,  and  both  methods  have  been 
declared  constitutional  by  the  Courts.  What  the 


INDUSTRIAL  DEMOCRACY  153 

Courts  have  declared  legal  the  conscience  of  the 
best  and  ablest  of  the  railway  managers  is  be- 
ginning to  recognize  as  just.  Said  Mr.  William 
Henry  Baldwin,  Jr. :  "  The  exact  fair  cost  should 
be  capitalized,  and  after  capital  has  had  its  fair 
return  and  business  efficiency  is  maintained,  the 
surplus  is  to  go  where  it  belongs,  to  the  public."  * 

We  can  collect  a  rental  in  the  form  of  a  tax 
for  the  landowner  (the  public)  from  the  land- 
holder, and  in  the  form  of  a  royalty  on  all  tim- 
ber cut  and  all  minerals  extracted  from  the  soil ; 
and  England's  recent  Budget  is  a  movement, 
and  a  successful  movement,  in  this  direction.  We 
can  prevent  stock-watering,  and  can  discourage, 
if  we  cannot  altogether  prevent,  stock-gambling ; 
and  the  recent  legislation  against  other  forms  of 
gambling,  and  the  increasing  popular  condemna- 
tion of  gambling  in  all  its  forms,  give  reasonable 
hope  of  a  time  when  the  attempt  to  get  some- 
thing for  nothing,  whatever  form  it  takes,  will 
be  accounted  as  immoral,  even  if  it  cannot  by 
law  be  made  as  criminal,  as  theft,  forgery,  and 
embezzlement. 

Said  Abraham  Lincoln  in  1861 :  "  Labor  is 
prior  to  and  independent  of  capital.  Capital  is 
only  the  fruit  of  labor,  and  could  never  have 
existed  if  labor  had  not  first  existed.  Labor  is  the 

1  J.  G.  Brooks,  An  American  Citizen,  p.  126. 


154  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

superior  of  capital  and  deserves  much  the  higher 
consideration.  Capital  has  its  rights  which  are  as 
worthy  of  protection  as  any  other  rights.  Nor  is 
it  denied  that  there  is,  and  probably  always  will  be, 
a  relation  between  labor  and  capital  producing 
mutual  benefits.  The  error  is  in  assuming  that 
the  whole  labor  of  the  community  exists  within 
that  relation.  .  .  .  There  is  not  of  necessity  any 
such  thing  as  the  free  hired  laborer  being  fixed 
to  that  condition  of  life.  Many  independent  men 
everywhere  in  these  States  a  few  years  back  in 
their  lives  were  hired  laborers.  The  prudent  pen- 
niless beginner  in  the  world  labors  for  wages  a 
while,  and  at  length  hires  another  new  beginner 
to  help  him.  This  is  the  just  and  generous  and 
prosperous  system  which  opens  the  way  to  all  — 
gives  hope  to  all,  and  consequently  energy  and 
progress  and  improvement  of  condition  to  all." 

In  these  sentences  Abraham  Lincoln  points 
the  way  toward  the  solution  of  our  labor  problem. 
What  many  independent  men  have  done  as  indi- 
viduals in  transferring  themselves  from  the  labor- 
ing class  without  capital  to  the  capitalistic  class, 
yet  still  continuing  their  labor,  I  hope  to  see  la- 
borers as  a  class  do  for  themselves.  I  hope  to  see 
a  state  of  society  in  which  there  will  be  few  or  no 
capitalists  who  do  not  have  to  labor,  and  few  or 
no  laborers  who  are  compelled  to  remain  all  their 


INDUSTRIAL  DEMOCRACY  155 

lives  without  becoming  capitalists ;  a  state  of  so- 
ciety in  which  no  man  will  live  on  the  fruits  of 
another  man's  labor,  and  no  man  will  be  denied 
the  fruits  of  his  own  labor.  This  is  what  I  mean 
by  industrial  democracy.  More  specifically,  it 
means  the  universal  diffusion  of  the  economic 
virtues  —  temperance,  honesty,  and  truth  ;  the 
cooperation  of  the  head  and  hands  in  an  indus- 
trial partnership ;  a  just  and  equitable  division  of 
the  products  of  their  joint  industry  between  the 
tool-owners  and  the  tool-users ;  a  fair  opportunity 
for  the  tool-user  to  become  part  owner  of  the 
tools  that  he  labors  with  ;  growing  cooperation 
between  the  laborer  and  the  capitalist,  or  the  tool- 
user  and  the  tool-owner,  in  both  ownership  of  the 
tool  and  the  direction  of  the  industry ;  and  a 
frank  recognition  of  the  fundamental  truth  that 
every  individual  is  entitled  to  the  product  of  his 
individual  industry,  to  a  just  proportion  of  the 
product  which  in  joint  industry  he  has  helped  to 
create,  and  to  a  participation  in  that  common 
wealth  which,  being  produced  by  no  individual 
industry,  belongs  of  right  to  the  entire  commu- 
nity. Democracy  appears  to  me  to  be  slowly  but 
surely  coming  to  a  recognition  of  these  principles. 
In  the  recognition  of  these  principles  and  their 
incorporation  in  the  industrial  life  of  the  com- 
munity is  the  solution  of  our  labor  problem. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE    ORIGIN   AND    NATURE    OF   GOVERNMENT 

IN  November,  1909,  three  hundred  miners  were 
entombed  in  a  mine  at  Cherry,  near  Spring  Val- 
ley, Illinois,  for  a  week.  The  living  were  here 
imprisoned  with  the  dead.  At  the  end  of  that 
time  twenty-two  miners  were  rescued  alive.  They 
had  kept  themselves  free  from  the  fatal  gas  by 
building  a  barricade.  Saved  from  death  by  suffo- 
cation, they  were  threatened  with  death  by  thirst. 
Two  of  these  men,  self-constituted  leaders  by 
virtue  of  their  character,  gave  orders  for  the  pro- 
tection of  the  little  community.  They  directed 
that  the  three  members  of  the  party  who  were 
sick  should  have  the  first  chance  at  the  little 
pools  of  water  that  were  in  the  depressions  that 
had  been  scooped  out  of  the  veins  of  coal.  Against 
these  orders  some  of  the  men  revolted,  and  one 
was  discovered  stealing  water  from  one  of  the 
sick  miners.  He  was  seized  by  the  guard  whom 
the  self-constituted  leaders  had  appointed  and, 
after  a  struggle,  was  felled  to  the  ground  and 
made  a  prisoner. 

Such  is  always  the  origin  of  government.  For 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  GOVERNMENT    157 

the  protection  of  the  community  some  man,  or  some 
body  of  men,  exercise  control,  to  which  usually 
the  majority  yield  willing  obedience,  and,  if  the 
government  is  successful,  the  minority  an  unwill- 
ing obedience.  This  government  is  always  based 
upon  power.  A  command  is  not  a  command  unless 
there  is  power  to  enforce  it.  Without  such  power 
it  is  only  advice.  When  one  man,  or  a  group  of 
men,  get  such  control  in  a  community  that  they 
can  make  the  rest  obey  their  commands,  there  is 
the  beginning  of  government ;  and  all  govern- 
ments in  the  history  of  the  world  have  begun  in 
this  way.  Parental  government  is  no  exception 
to  this  fundamental  principle.  In  the  well-ordered 
family  the  child  obeys  the  requirements  of  his 
parents  because  they  are  his  parents  and  have  a 
right  to  demand  submission  to  their  authority,  as 
in  a  well-ordered  State  the  citizens  obey  the  gov- 
ernment because  it  is  the  government  and  has  a 
right  to  demand  submission  to  its  authority. 

This  government  may  be  that  of  one  strong 
man  ruling  over  the  rest,  in  which  case  it  is  an 
autocracy ;  it  may  be  a  small  body  of  men,  or  class 
of  men,  ruling  over  the  rest,  then  it  is  an  oli- 
garchy ;  it  may  be  the  many  ruling  over  the  rest, 
then  it  is  a  democracy.  But  it  is  not  a  govern- 
ment at  all  unless  the  ruler,  be  he  one,  few,  or 
many,  has  a  recognized  authority  to  issue  com- 


158  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

mands  and  power  to  enforce  obedience  to  them. 
This  power  may  be  that  of  an  armed  force,  then 
the  government  is  a  military  government ;  it  may 
be  a  traditional  or  inherited  power  exercised  by 
a  class  and  resting  upon  tradition,  then  it  is  an 
hereditary  aristocracy ;  it  may  be  that  of  a  se- 
lected body  of  office-holders  intrusted  by  long 
custom  with  practically  irresponsible  power,  then 
it  is  a  bureaucracy ;  it  may  be  the  power  of  con- 
centrated wealth  exercised  through  political  forms 
that  may  be  either  monarchic,  oligarchic,  aristo- 
cratic, or  democratic.  Then,  whatever  the  politi- 
cal forms,  the  government  is  a  plutocracy. 

To  these  historic  forms  of  government  our 
fathers  attempted  to  add  another — self-govern- 
ment. It  was  founded  upon  three  fundamental 
principles,  the  truth  of  which  was  tacitly  assumed 
rather  than  explicitly  expressed.  They  were :  — 
First,  that  the  mass  of  men  are  better  able  to 
govern  themselves  than  the  few  are  to  govern 
them ;  that  the  perils  from  the  ignorance  of  the 
governed  are  less  than  the  perils  from  the  selfish- 
ness of  the  governors. 

.  Second,  that  therefore  men  should  be  left  free 
to  manage  their  own  affairs,  and  only  their  own 
affairs;  that  therefore  each  man  should  govern 
himself  in  respect  to  those  things  that  concern 
only  himself,  and  each  community  should  govern 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  GOVERNMENT    159 

itself  in  those  things  which  concern  only  itself. 
Hence  grew  up  local  self-government  and  the 
Federal  system :  the  town  government  for  the 
town,  the  municipal  government  for  the  city, 
the  county  government  for  the  county,  the  State 
government  for  the  State,  and,  finally,  the  Fed- 
eral Government  for  those  National  interests 
which  concern  the  people  of  all  the  towns,  cities, 
counties,  and  States.  Hence  the  provision  of  the 
Constitution  that  "  the  powers  not  delegated  to 
the  United  States  by  the  Constitution,  nor  pro- 
hibited by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the 
States  respectively,  or  to  the  people."  l 

Third,  that  men  are  not  born  able  to  govern 
themselves  as  fish  are  to  swim,  or  birds  are  to  fly, 
but  that  all  men  have  a  dominant  capacity  for 
self-government ;  that  they  must  be,  and  they  can 
be,  educated ;  hence  the  public-school  system. 

Thus  was  the  new  Nation  born,  inspired  by  a 
new  ideal,  and  founded  on  a  new  political  faith 
—  faith  in  humanity. 

But  it  needed  education  in  a  school  of  conflict. 
The  Declaration  of  Independence  was  deemed, 
both  in  the  South  and  in  the  North,  to  be  appli- 
cable only  to  the  white  race.  Slavery,  which  both 

1  It  is  true  that  this  is  a  subsequent  Amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution, but  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  expresses  the  spirit  of  the 
original  document,  and  of  those  who  framed  that  document. 


160  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

in  the  South  and  in  the  North  our  fathers  ex- 
pected would  gradually  disappear,  grew  with  our 
growth  and  strengthened  with  our  strength.  It 
created  in  the  South  what  may  be  called  a  feudal 
democracy,  a  type  of  aristocracy  existing  under 
democratic  forms.  The  war  between  the  two 
ideals  of  political  life,  the  Southern  and  the 
Northern,  established  for  the  Republic  two  prin- 
ciples :  first,  the  doctrine  that  all  governments 
exist  for  the  benefit  of  the  governed  is  as  appli- 
cable to  the  government  of  the  negro  as  to  the 
government  of  the  white  man ;  second,  a  gov- 
ernment founded  on  self-government  is  not  weak 
but  strong  —  strong  enough  to  meet  successfully 
what  was  perhaps  the  greatest  revolt  against 
government  which  the  world  has  ever  seen.  This 
war  at  home  was  followed  by  one  between  auto- 
cracy and  democracy,  between  the  Land  of  the 
Inquisition  and  the  Land  of  the  Public  School. 
As  the  Confederates  had  established  the  power 
of  the  Federal  Government  within  the  borders  of 
the  Republic,  so  the  Spanish  War  established  the 
power  of  the  Federated  Republic  among  the  gov- 
ernments of  the  world.  If  it  did  not  make  the 
Republic  a  world  power,  it  at  least  won  for  that 
world  power  a  world  recognition. 

Meanwhile,  the  country  has  grown  with  un- 
precedented growth  in  territory  from  thirteen 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  GOVERNMENT    161 

feeble  colonies  along  the  Atlantic  Coast  to  a  Re- 
public overspreading  half  a  continent ;  in  popu- 
lation from  three  or  four  millions  to  eighty 
millions ;  in  wealth  from  poverty  to  one  of  the 
richest  communities  in  the  world.  Its  educational 
equipment  includes  a  public-school  system  which 
is  certainly  the  largest,  and,  unless  Germany  be 
an  exception,  the  best  in  Christendom,  supple- 
mented by  private  schools,  colleges,  universities, 
and  professional  schools  not  surpassed  by  any  in 
the  world;  its  material  equipment  of  railway, 
telegraph,  telephone,  and  the  like  puts  it  among 
the  foremost  nations  in  the  march  of  human  pro- 
gress; its  moral  ideals,  exemplified  in  its  various 
social  and  educational  reforms,  and  in  its  free 
institutions  of  religion,  prove  the  self-educative 
value  of  self-government;  and  its  international 
influence  is  seen  in  the  effect  of  its  ideals  and 
institutions  upon  other  lands,  which  have  adopted 
since  the  birth  of  America  its  representative 
houses  of  Legislature,  its  popular  suffrage,  its 
public  schools,  its  free  assemblies,  and  its  free 
press. 

Meanwhile,  this  ideal  of  self-government  has 
been  undergoing  a  change  which  is  none  the  less 
revolutionary  because  it  has  been  growth,  and 
hence  unconscious ;  a  change  from  a  government 
of  self-governing  individuals  into  a  self-govern- 


162  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

ing  community.  We  have  learned  that  the  inter- 
est of  the  whole  is  more  than  the  sum  of  the 
interests  of  all  the  individuals ;  and  that  the  in- 
terests of  all  individuals  can  only  be  secured  by 
their  common  recognition  of  the  interest  of  the 
whole.  Some  of  the  changes  which  have  taken 
place  in  my  own  lifetime  may  serve  to  illustrate 
this  peaceful  revolution. 

The  private  penny  posts  which  were  once 
operated  in  some  of  our  great  cities  exist  no 
longer ;  all  epistolary  communications  between  the 
members  of  this  great  community  are  conveyed 
for  them  by  their  Federal  Government.  The 
banking,  which  was  at  first  a  purely  private  enter- 
prise, is  a  purely  private  enterprise  no  longer ; 
as  one  great  financier  once  said  to  me,  "the 
United  States  is  the  greatest  banking  concern  in 
the  world  "  ;  and  all  so-called  private  banks  are  so 
brought  into  affiliation  with  the  United  States 
Government  and  under  its  regulation  and  control 
that  the  whole  banking  system  possesses  a  real, 
though  not  a  strictly  organic  unity.  Our  high- 
ways, because  of  the  invention  of  steam  and  rail- 
ways, are  no  longer  open  highways  on  which  each 
man  is  free  to  travel  when  and  as  he  will,  but  are 
great  enterprises  carried  on  by  combinations  be- 
tween labor  and  capital,  and  now  under  Govern- 
ment control,  which,  there  is  reason  to  believe, 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  GOVERNMENT    163 

will  make  sure  that  their  operation  shall  be  for 
the  equal  benefit  of  the  entire  community.  The 
public-school  system  has  not  only  extended  over 
the  whole  Nation,  as  it  did  not  at  first,  but  has 
undertaken  all  forms  of  education  from  the  kin- 
dergarten to  the  university,  and  is  accompanied 
by  public  libraries  in  practically  all  centres  of 
population.  The  public  health  is  seen  to  be  some- 
thing more  than  the  health  of  individuals,  or,  at 
least,  it  is  seen  that  the  health  of  individuals  can- 
not be  secured  by  individualistic  enterprise.  We 
have,  therefore,  Health  Boards,  beginning  in  our 
great  cities,  extending  throughout  our  States, 
and  now,  unless  I  am  greatly  mistaken,  soon  to 
be  organized  in  a  bureau  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment, for  the  purpose  of  compelling  obedience  to 
sanitary  law  and  stamping  out  epidemics.  Even 
our  amusements  and  recreations  are  made  a  pub- 
lic concern,  and  in  our  cities,  towns,  and  even 
smaller  villages,  parks  are  provided,  playgrounds 
for  the  children,  and  bands  of  music  for  the  sum- 
mer evenings.  In  some  cases  these  are  provided 
by  political  organizations,  in  others  by  voluntary 
organization,  but  in  either  case  by  a  common  and 
cooperative  effort. 

These  changes  have  been  accompanied  by 
another  change.  The  increasing  complexity  of 
modern  civilization  forces  upon  us,  whether  we 


164  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

will  or  no,  an  increasing  complexity  in  our  gov- 
ernment. The  prime  function  of  government  is 
to  protect  persons  and  property,  and  the  four 
fundamental  rights  of  persons  and  property  have 
never  been  better  defined  than  in  the  four  moral 
laws  of  the  Ten  Commandments :  Thou  shalt  not 
kill,  thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,  thou  shalt 
not  steal,  thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness.  The 
enforcement  of  these  laws  in  a  modern  com- 
munity with  the  heterogeneous  population  which 
America  contains  means  something  very  different 
from  the  enforcement  of  these  laws  in  the  wilder- 
ness, where  they  were  first  proclaimed. 

The  law,  Thou  shalt  not  kill,  means  not  only 
adequate  protection  of  the  individual  from  the 
assassin  or  the  mob,  and  of  the  free  laborer  from 
the  pistol,  the  dynamite,  or  the  savage  blow  of 
the  striking  laborer  or  his  ally ;  it  means  super- 
vision by  the  Government  of  our  food-supplies  to 
prevent  adulterations  perilous  to  health ;  protec- 
tion of  the  life  of  little  children  from  the  greed 
which  sends  them  into  life-destroying  industries ; 
protection  of  the  wives  and  mothers  from  insistent 
demands  of  industry  which  destroy  their  mother- 
hood and  rob  their  children  and  their  husbands  of 
their  care  and  companionship ;  from  the  peril  to 
life  involved  in  tenement-house  sweat-shops;  from 
the  corrupting  of  our  water-supply  by  turning  our 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  GOVERNMENT    165 

rivers  into  open  sewers;  from  the  carelessness  of 
railway  management,  which  in  one  year  destroyed 
more  lives  in  America  than  were  destroyed  in 
the  Russian  army  by  the  Battle  of  Mukden,  the 
greatest  battle  of  modern  times ;  and  from  the 
reckless  driving  of  automobiles,  of  whose  death- 
list  there  is  no  census.  Malice  slays  our  hun- 
dreds, greed  our  thousands,  carelessness  our  tens 
of  thousands.  It  is  the  duty  of  a  competent  and 
efficient  government  to  save  life  from  all  three 
of  these  assassins. 

The  law,  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,  is  not 
adequately  enforced  by  setting  husband  or  wife 
free  from  the  marital  relation  when  its  law  is 
violated.  What  havoc  in  human  health,  what  evils 
inflicted  upon  innocent  women  and  children,  are 
due  to  the  violation  of  this  law  physicians  have 
long  known,  and  the  public  is  beginning  to  know. 
Monsters  in  human  form,  such  as  the  grotesque 
fancies  of  a  Dickens  or  a  Shakespeare  creating  a 
Quilp  or  a  Caliban  have  never  equaled,  exist  in 
American  society,  carrying  on  a  white  slave  trade 
so  horrible  in  its  details  that  reputable  men  and 
women  have  been  unable  to  believe  that  it  could 
be  true.  Nor  will  our  Government,  Federal  or 
State,  have  fulfilled  its  duty  in  the  enforcement 
of  this  primitive  legislation,  Thou  shalt  not  com- 
mit adultery,  until  our  legislators  realize,  as  they 


166  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

have  not  in  the  past,  how  openly  it  is  violated 
and  how  great  is  the  almost  epidemic  evil  which 
such  violations  inflict  upon  the  Nation. 

Thou  shalt  not  steal,  means  thou  shalt  not  take 
from  thy  neighbor  without  giving  him  a  just 
equivalent;  it  means  protection  of  the  ignorant 
from  the  wiles  of  the  professional  gambler ;  pro- 
tection of  the  innocent  and  helpless  stockholder 
from  the  chicanery  of  the  stock  gambler ;  protec- 
tion of  the  insured  and  of  the  bank  depositor  from 
the  tricks  and  devices  of  the  dishonest  financier; 
protection  of  the  owners  from  the  schemes  of  the 
railway  wrecker ;  and  the  protection  of  the  public 
interest  in  the  public  property  from  the  shrewd 
devices  of  men  who  are  eager  to  acquire  wealth 
without  the  labor  of  producing  it. 

The  law,  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness, 
means  prosecution  and  punishment  of  the  press 
which  violates  this  law,  whether  it  does  so  with 
malicious  intent  or  from  mere  careless  money- 
making  greed.  The  freedom  of  the  press  no  more 
means  freedom  to  do  what  one  likes  with  his  pen 
than  freedom  of  action  means  that  he  may  do 
what  he  likes  with  his  hand.  If  I  put  my  hand 
into  my  neighbor's  pocket  and  abstract  his  purse, 
I  am  presently  carried  off  to  the  police  station, 
because  I  have  violated  my  neighbor's  right  of 
property ;  if  I  use  my  pen  to  vilify  my  neighbor, 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  GOVERNMENT    167 

or,  with  absolute  carelessness  of  his  rights  and 
my  obligations,  print  untrue  and  sensational  gos- 
sip about  him,  I  ought  to  go  into  the  same  prison- 
house  and  occupy  the  same  cell  with  him  who  has 
robbed  his  neighbor  of  his  purse.  A  newspaper 
has  no  more  right  to  despoil  one  of  his  repu- 
tation than  a  thief  has  a  right  to  despoil  one  of 
his  property.  The  robber  of  reputation  is  the 
more  despicable  criminal  of  the  two.  Freedom 
of  the  press  means  that  the  newspaper  may  print 
what  it  will  without  submitting  beforehand  its 
matter  to  a  governmental  censor.  It  does  not  mean 
that  it  may  print  what  it  will  without  being  re- 
sponsible afterwards  for  its  falsehoods  if  it  prints 
what  is  not  true. 

Thus  in  two  ways  the  function  of  government 
has  greatly  increased  within  the  last  century.  It 
has  increased  because  the  elementary  rights  of 
men  are  more  complex  in  our  complex  civiliza- 
tion, and  the  laws  for  their  protection  must  there- 
fore be  more  complex.  It  has  also  increased 
because  we  have  discovered  that  many  of  our 
fundamental  rights,  such  as  our  right  to  go  from 
one  part  to  another  of  our  Republic,  our  right  to 
be  preserved  from  the  contagious  disease  of  a 
careless  neighbor,  our  right  to  have  our  children 
protected  from  the  corrupting  influence  of  se- 
ductive vice,  our  right  to  have  them  given  such 


168  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

education  as  will  give  them  a  fair  opportunity  for 
a  useful  and  happy  life,  can  be  protected  only 
by  competent  and  cooperative  action  through 
government.  Both  causes  have  contributed  to  our 
growing  realization  of  the  truth  that  a  self- 
governing  community  is  something  very  different 
from  a  community  of  self-governing  individuals. 
Many  in  our  times  look  with  apprehension 
upon  this  rapid  extension  of  the  function  and 
powers  of  government.  We  are  departing,  they 
say,  from  the  traditions  of  our  fathers ;  and  they 
are  right.  We  are  compelled  to  depart  from  the 
traditions  of  OUT  fathers.  They  traveled  in  stage- 
coaches, we  travel  in  Pullman  cars;  they  com- 
municated by  mail,  we  increasingly  communicate 
by  telegraph  and  telephone ;  they  used  coin  as  a 
medium  of  exchange,  or  bank-bills  at  their  own 
risk,  we  use  bank-bills  without  any  risk ;  they  suf- 
fered from  devastating  epidemics,  we  are  pro- 
tecting ourselves  from  devastating  epidemics  by 
Governmental  regulation ;  they  burned  candles  or 
whale  oil,  we  illuminate  our  houses  by  kerosene 
or  electricity;  they  had  few  books  and  poor 
schools,  we  have  excellent  schools  and  public 
libraries.  Life  in  the  twentieth  century  is  very 
different  from  life  in  the  eighteenth ;  government 
in  the  twentieth  century  must  be  very  different 
from  government  in  the  eighteenth.  It  must  be 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE   OP  GOVERNMENT    169 

either  more  extensive  in  its  function  and  opera- 
tion, or  far  less  effective  in  its  protection  of  hu- 
man rights  and  its  enforcement  of  human  duties. 
The  notion  that  a  complex  and  extended  gov- 
ernment is  inconsistent  with  freedom  grows  out 
of  the  notion  that  freedom  is  exemption  from 
law ;  that  liberty  and  independence  are  synony- 
mous. But  freedom  and  independence  are  not 
synonymous,  and  freedom  is  not  exemption  from 
law.  Leonard  Bacon,  in  his  "  Pilgrim  Hymn," 
thus  describes  the  cargo  the  Pilgrims  brought 
with  them :  — 

Laws,  freedom,  truth,  and  faith  in  God 
Game  with  these  exiles  o'er  the  waves. 

Laws  !  Freedom !  Can  these  live  in  the  same  ship  ? 
Can  these  flourish  in  the  same  community  ?  What 
do  we  mean  by  law? 

Austin,  the  famous  writer  on  English  law,  has 
defined  law  as  the  edict  of  a  superior  who  has 
the  power  to  enforce  his  will  by  penalty,  a  power 
which  confers  on  him  his  authority,  and  creates 
in  the  subject  a  duty  or  obligation  of  obedience.1 

1  "  A  command  is  an  order  issued  by  a  superior  to  an  inferior. 
It  is  a  signification  of  desire  distinguished  by  this  peculiarity, 
that '  the  party  to  whom  it  is  directed  is  liable  to  evil  from  the 
other,  in  case  he  comply  not  with  the  desire.'  '  If  you  are  able 
and  willing  to  harm  me  in  case  I  comply  not  with  your  wish,  the 
expression  of  your  wish  amounts  to  a  command.'  Being  liable  to 


170  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

It  is  true  that  power  to  enforce  law  is  neces- 
sary to  law ;  but  more  is  necessary ;  the  possession 
of  power  does  not  of  itself  confer  authority 
or  create  duty.  Authority  is  rightful  or  just 
power,  and  something  more  than  the  mere  pos- 
session of  power  is  necessary  to  give  the  possessor 
a  right  to  command  or  create  in  the  subject  a 
duty  of  obedience.  If  the  law  is  an  unjust  law, 
disobedience  may  become  duty.  King  Darius  had 
power  to  enforce  by  decree  his  command,  but  the 
plain  duty  of  Daniel  was  to  disobey.  The  Italian 
bandit  has  power  to  command  his  prisoners,  but 
he  has  no  just  authority  over  them.  If  law  is 
simply  an  edict  issued  by  one  who  has  power  to 
enforce  obedience  by  penalty,  then  law  and  liberty 
are  inconsistent.  For  reluctant  submission  to  a 
superior  power  which  I  obey,  not  because  I  choose, 
but  because  I  must,  is  not  liberty.  The  Puritans 
in  their  revolt  against  the  Stuarts  no  less  than 
the  French  in  their  revolt  against  the  Bourbons, 
refused  such  submission.  But  the  Puritans  were 

evil  in  case  I  comply  not  with  the  wish  which  you  signify,  I  am 
bound  or  obliged  by  it,  or  I  lie  under  a  duty  to  obey  it.  The  evil  is 
called  a  sanction,  and  the  command  or  duty  is  said  to  be  sanctioned 
by  the  chance  of  incurring  the  evil.  The  three  terms,  command, 
duty,  and  sanction  are  thus  inseparably  connected.  As  Austin  ex- 
presses it  in  the  language  of  formal  logic, '  each  of  the  three  terms 
signifies  the  same  notion,  but  each  denotes  a  different  part  of  that 
notion,  and  connotes  the  residue.'"  —  Encyclopedia  Britannica, 
vol.  xiv,  p.  356. 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  GOVERNMENT    171 

not  a  lawless  folk ;  they  put  an  unaccustomed 
emphasis  on  the  sacred  ness  of  law. 

I  venture  to  offer  my  own  definition  of  law, 
without,  however,  claiming  for  it  any  originality. 
It  is  Hebraic  in  its  origin,  although,  it  is  not  form- 
ally stated,  so  far  as  I  recall,  in  Hebrew  literature. 
But  it  underlies  the  conception  of  law  embodied 
in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  A  striking  illus- 
tration of  it  is  afforded  by  the  Nineteenth  Psalm, 
which  many  Biblical  scholars  regard  as  two  dif- 
ferent psalms  put  together  by  some  editor.1  I 
hesitate  to  dissent  from  them,  but  in  my  judg- 
ment the  psalm  is  by  one  poet  who  saw  what  mod- 
ern thinkers  have  often  failed  to  see,  —  that  law 
is  essentially  the  same  in  the  physical  and  in  the 
spiritual  world.  "  The  heavens  declare  the  glory 
of  God ;  and  the  firmament  sheweth  his  handi- 
work." That  is  the  operation  of  law  in  the  phys- 
ical universe.  Not  less  is  it  true  that  "  the  law  of 
the  Lord  is  perfect,  restoring  the  soul :  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Lord  is  sure,  making  wise  the  sim- 
ple." That  is  the  operation  of  law  in  the  spiritual 
realm. 

1  Charles  Augustus  Briggs,  LL.D.,  Critical  and  Exegetical 
Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Psalms,  vol.  i,  p.  162  :  "  Psalm  19  is 
composed  of  two  originally  separate  poems  :  (a)  a  morning 
hymn,  praising  the  glory  of  'El  in  the  heavens  (v.  2-5b)  and 
glorious  movements  of  the  sun  (v.  5c-7)  ;  (b)  a  didactic  poem, 
describing  the  excellence  of  the  Law  (v.  8-11),  with  a  petition 
for  absolution,  restraint  from  sin,  and  acceptance  in  worship 
(v.  12-15)." 


172  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

Law  is  the  nature  of  the  thing  of  which  it  is 
predicated. 

By  "  the  law  of  gravitation  "  we  mean  that  it 
is  the  nature  of  material  objects  to  attract  each 
other  in  a  certain  definite  ratio.  By  "  the  laws  of 
health  "  we  mean  that  the  nature  of  the  body  is 
such  that  if  one  takes  certain  food,  drink,  air, 
baths,  exercise,  he  will  enjoy  good  health ;  if  he 
does  not,  he  will  have  disease.  By  "  the  moral 
law  "  we  mean  that  the  social  organism  is  such 
that  if  we  respect  each  other's  right  to  person, 
property,  the  family,  reputation,  the  community 
will  be  prosperous ;  if  we  do  not,  it  will  be  un- 
prosperous.  The  scientist  does  not  make  the  law 
of  gravitation ;  he  finds  it.  The  physician  does 
not  make  the  laws  of  health  ;  he  discovers  them. 
Moses  did  not  make  the  Ten  Commandments ; 
he  interpreted  them.  They  are  not  right  because 
Jehovah  commanded  them  ;  Jehovah  commanded 
them  because  they  are  right. 

If  this  be  true,  if  law  is  the  nature  of  things,  the 
nature  of  man,  the  nature  of  society,  the  nature 
of  the  universe,  the  nature  of  God,  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  freedom  from  law.  To  escape  from 
law  it  would  be  necessary  to  escape  from  the 
universe,  to  escape  from  God,  to  escape  from 
ourselves.  Liberty  and  lawlessness  are  not  syn- 
onymous. Liberty  is  not  escape  from  law. 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  GOVERNMENT    173 

Liberty  is  voluntary  obedience  to  self -en- 
forced law. 

It  is  the  understanding  of  law,  obedience  to 
law,  the  use  of  law.  A  man  is  not  free  to  jump 
off  the  roof  of  a  house  and  fly  like  a  bird.  If  he 
attempts  it,  he  will  find  himself  on  the  ground 
with  a  broken  leg  and  not  free  to  walk  on  the 
earth.  He  is  free  to  fly  when  he  understands 
the  laws  of  aerial  navigation  and  flies  in  obedi- 
ence to  them.  Man  is  not  free  to  eat  and  drink 
as  much  as  his  gluttonous  desires  prompt.  If  he 
attempts  to  do  so,  he  presently  finds  that  he  is 
not  free  to  digest  what  he  has  eaten  and  must 
make  up  for  the  one  day's  feast  by  several  days 
of  fasting.  Liberty  does  not  mean  that  the  chauf- 
feur may  drive  his  automobile  thirty  miles  an 
hour  through  the  crowded  streets  of  a  city,  for 
then  the  pedestrian  has  not  liberty  to  cross  the 
street.  Liberty  does  not  mean  that  the  labor 
union  may  determine  the  conditions  of  work  for 
non-union  men,  for  then  the  independent  laborer 
is  denied  liberty  to  work.  Liberty  does  not  mean 
that  life-insurance  directors  may  invest  their 
funds  as  they  please,  for  then  the  bereaved  widow 
has  no  liberty  to  get  her  money  when  her  hus- 
band leaves  her  in  poverty.  Liberty  does  not 
mean  that  a  railway  may  charge  what  it  will  and 
give  what  rebates  it  chooses,  for  then  the  town 


174  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

discriminated  against  has  no  liberty  to  grow,  and 
the  trader  discriminated  against  has  no  liberty  to 
trade.  Only  that  community  is  free  which  recog- 
nizes the  sanctity  of  law —  law  written  in  the  very 
nature  of  human  society  because  in  the  nature  of 
the  men  and  women  who  constitute  society — and 
honestly  and  intelligently  endeavors  to  conform 
its  life  to  that  inherent,  immutable,  eternal  law. 
Law  is  written  in  the  very  constitution  of  the  uni- 
verse. Nothing  is  just  law  which  is  not  so  written. 
The  power  of  a  lawgiver  does  not  make  law 
just,  whether  that  lawgiver  be  one  or  many — an 
aristocracy  or  a  democracy.  The  consent  of  the 
governed  does  not  make  it  just.  Conformity  to 
the  nature  of  life  —  material  and  psychical,  in- 
dividual and  social — alone  makes  law  just.  To 
discard  law,  put  it  aside,  live  as  though  it  were 
not,  accept  it  only  so  far  as  it  accords  with  our 
own  whims  or  inclinations  is  anarchism.  To  sub- 
mit to  it  only  because  there  is  lodged  in  the  law- 
giver power  to  inflict  a  penalty  on  the  disobedient 
is  submission  to  despotism.  To  recognize  its  sanc- 
tity, to  see  its  value,  to  understand  its  purpose,  to 
use  it  for  the  common  welfare  is  liberty.  For  law 
is  the  nature  of  the  thing  concerning  which  it  is 
predicated ;  and  liberty  is  voluntary  obedience  to 
self-recognized  and  self -enforced  law. 

A  man's  relation  to  law  may  be  either  one  of 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  GOVERNMENT    175 

three  relations :  he  may  disregard  law ;  he  may 
submit  to  law ;  he  may  use  law. 

A  boy  grows  up  at  home,  where  his  health  is 
not  cared  for ;  where  he  eats  what  he  likes,  exer- 
cises as  he  likes,  sleeps  when  he  likes ;  in  short,  is 
physically  lawless.  He  is  taken  seriously  ill.  The 
doctor  finds  that  he  has  undermined  his  constitu- 
tion, and  tells  him  if  he  does  not  reform  his  life 
—  eat,  sleep,  and  exercise  according  to  law  —  he 
has  not  long  to  live.  The  boy  reluctantly  aban- 
dons his  imagined  freedom  and  submits  to  the 
laws  of  health.  He  comes  into  the  second  rela- 
tion to  the  law,  the  relation  of  submission.  His 
health  improves  and  becomes  measurably  normal. 
He  goes  to  college  and  desires  to  join  the  crew. 
The  trainer  says  to  him,  If  you  wish  to  join  the 
crew,  you  must  accept  the  conditions  of  the  crew. 
He  tells  the  boy  what  he  must  eat  and  what  he 
must  not  eat ;  what  he  may  drink  and  what  he 
must  not  drink ;  when  he  must  go  to  bed  and 
what  exercise  he  must  take.  The  boy,  ambitious 
to  get  on  the  crew,  accepts  these  directions,  loy- 
ally and  even  gladly.  He  is  now  not  merely  sub- 
mitting to  the  laws  of  health,  he  is  using  the 
laws  of  health  in  order  to  equip  himself  for  the 
position  to  which  his  ambition  calls  him.  Disre- 
gard of  law  is  suicide,  obedience  to  law  is  health, 
use  of  law  is  power. 


176  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

A  community  which  disregards  the  four  funda- 
mental rights  of  man  —  the  rights  of  person,  of 
property,  of  the  family,  and  of  reputation  —  lives 
in  anarchy  and  perpetual  turmoil ;  the  end  thereof 
is  social  death.  A  community  of  individuals  who 
yield  obedience  to  these  laws  just  in  so  far  as 
they  must  and  no  further  may  have  a  certain 
measure  of  social  health,  may  at  least  be  pre- 
served from  social  death.  But  no  community  is 
strong,  no  community  is  on  the  highway  to  a 
great  and  common  prosperity,  which  does  not 
recognize  in  these  laws  the  conditions  of  well- 
being,  which  does  not  by  its  united  action  pro- 
mote the  health  and  life  of  its  members,  the 
social  purity  of  its  members,  the  material  prosper- 
ity of  its  members,  and  the  reputation  and  honor 
of  its  members.  Only  such  a  community  is  a 
strong,  self-governing  community ;  only  such  a 
community  is  truly  free. 


CHAPTER  XI 

WHO    SHOULD    GOVERN? 

GOVERNMENT  is  power  to  enforce  command; 
government  is  just  when  the  commands  en- 
forced are  in  accord  with  the  great  eternal  laws  of 
right  and  wrong.  The  function  of  government 
in  the  enforcement  of  these  laws  is  primarily 
the  protection  of  the  four  fundamental  rights  of 
man,  —  the  rights  of  the  person,  the  rights  of  the 
family,  the  rights  of  property,  and  the  rights  of 
reputation.  Government  may  exercise  other  func- 
tions ;  but  if  it  does  not  exercise  this  function, 
it  is  inefficient  and  incompetent.  On  whom  is 
the  duty  of  protecting  the  rights  of  persons  and 
property  laid  ?  Upon  whom  does  it  devolve  in  a 
self-governing  community? 

Says  Abraham  Lincoln :  "  When  the  white 
man  governs  himself,  that  is  self-government,  but 
when  he  governs  himself  and  also  another  man, 
that  is  more  than  self-government ;  that  is  despot- 
ism." That  is  true  in  its  immediate  application  to 
slavery ;  absolutely  and  unqualifiedly  true.  For 
one  man  to]  govern  another  man,  to  take  charge 
of  him,  determine  what  are  his  interests  and  con- 


178  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

trol  his  actions,  is  despotism.  It  may  be  a  bene- 
volent despotism ;  it  may  be  a  just  despotism ; 
but  whether  benevolent  and  just  or  malevolent 
and  unjust,  it  is  despotism.  When  a  criminal  is 
put  into  State  prison,  where  all  his  actions  are  de- 
termined for  him  by  another,  he  is  living  under  a 
despotism. 

But  Abraham  Lincoln  also  said :  "  The  legiti- 
mate object  of  government  is  to  do  for  the  peo- 
ple what  needs  to  be  done,  but  which  they  cannot 
by  individual  effort  do  at  all,  or  do  as  well  for 
themselves."  When  the  people  do  collectively 
what  needs  to  be  done,  but  what  they  cannot  by 
individual  effort  do  at  all,  or  do  as  well  for  them- 
selves, that  is  not  despotism  :  that  is  social  self- 
government,  although  in  that  social  self-govern- 
ment each  individual  exercises  a  certain  amount 
of  control  over  the  actions  of  every  other  indi- 
vidual. The  community,  by  its  collective  action, 
not  only  establishes  a  public  school,  but  compels 
the  parents  to  send  their  child  to  school ;  it  not 
only  digs  a  sewer,  but  it  compels  the  individual 
householder  to  connect  his  house  with  the  sewer 
and  send  the  waste,  which  otherwise  would  be  a 
nuisance  to  the  community,  through  the  sewer ;  it 
not  only  constructs  a  highway,  but  it  determines 
the  rate  of  speed  at  which  the  automobile  may  be 
driven  along  the  highway.  Social  self-government 


WHO  SHOULD  GOVERN?  179 

necessarily  involves  the  government  of  one  indi- 
vidual by  other  individuals.  That  is,  the  compel- 
ling of  one  individual  to  do  what  he  does  not  wish 
to  do,  or  to  abstain  from  what  he  does  wish  to  do, 
because  his  will  is  oppugnant  to  the  will  of  the 
community.  Who  have  the  right  to  take  part  in 
this  social  self-government,  in  its  determining 
what  the  individual  may  do  or  may  not  do?  The 
advocates  of  universal  suffrage  claim  that  every 
member  of  the  community  of  adult  age  may  take 
part  in  this  social  self-government.  Starting  with 
the  assertion,  as  an  axiom,  that  every  man  has  a 
right  to  govern  himself,  they  deduce  the  con- 
clusion that  every  man  has  a  right  to  take  part  in 
the  government  of  others.  The  conclusion  does 
not  follow  from  the  premise.  On  the  contrary,  I 
believe  it  may  be  laid  down  as  a  political  axiom, 
on  which  all  self-governments  should  be  based, 
that— 

.ZVb  man  has  a  right  to  take  part  in  govern- 
ing others  who  has  not  the  intellectual  and 
moral  capacity  to  govern  himself. 

The  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  an 
epoch  of  revolution.  It  was  characterized  by  an 
uprising  of  an  oppressed  people  against  their  op- 
pressors. In  France  and  in  America,  following 
the  example  which  had  been  set  in  the  preceding 
century  by  the  Puritans  in  England,  the  common 


180  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

people  demanded  their  rights.  The  question  of 
political  philosophy  was,  what  are  the  rights  of 
the  common  people  ?  The  claim  of  despotism  was 
that  the  common  people  had  no  political  rights  ; 
they  were  children  who  were  to  submit  without 
question  to  the  authority  of  their  parents.  Louis 
XVIII,  returning  from  his  exile  in  England  to 
Paris,  thus  defined,  with  curious  naivete,  the 
Bourbon  conception  of  the  relation  between  king 
and  people  :  "  If  my  right  to  the  throne  were  not 
altogether  founded  on  that  law  [the  divine  right 
of  kings,  recognized  by  the  ancient  law  of  France], 
what  claim  should  I  have  to  it  ?  What  am  I  apart 
from  that  right  ?  An  infirm  old  man,  a  miserable 
outlaw,  reduced  to  begging,  far  from  his  coun- 
try, for  shelter  and  food.  That  is  what  I  was 
only  a  few  days  ago ;  but  that  old  man,  that  out- 
law, was  the  King  of  France.  That  title  alone 
sufficed  to  make  the  whole  nation,  when  at  last 
it  understood  its  real  interests,  recall  me  to  the 
throne  of  my  fathers.  I  have  come  back  in  an- 
swer to  the  call,  but  I  have  come  back  King  of 
France."  1 

In  such  an  epoch  the  emphasis,  alike  of  leaders 
and  of  people,  was  laid  upon  rights.  This  view 
we  have  inherited  from  our  fathers.  We  have 
formed  the  habit  of  looking  at  all  the  political 

1  Gilbert  Stenger,  The  Return  of  Louis  XVIII,  p.  177. 


WHO  SHOULD  GOVERN?  181 

duties  as  rights  and  privileges,  as  something  to 
which  we  have  a  claim,  something  which  will 
confer  a  benefit  upon  us.  All  men,  we  think, 
have  an  equal  right  to  hold  office,  and  when  one 
man  has  held  office  four  years,  his  neighbor  says, 
it  is  now  my  turn.  The  ballot  we  think  of  as 
something  by  which  we  are  to  protect  our  own 
interests  and  promote  our  own  welfare.  We  se- 
lect a  Representative,  who  must  come  from  our 
political  district,  and  who,  in  the  House  of  Re- 
presentatives, will  seek  such  legislation  as  will 
promote  our  local  welfare ;  we  select  Senators 
who  will  represent  our  State  and  promote  the  in- 
terests of  our  State  in  the  National  legislation. 

The  next  step  is  easy  and  natural.  Special  in- 
terests send  representatives  to  Congress.  Appro- 
priations for  public  buildings,  or  for  river  and 
harbor  improvements,  and  special  advantage  for 
special  industries  in  the  protective  tariff  are  en- 
gineered by  skillful  politicians,  each  seeking, 
with  perhaps  personal  disinterestedness,  to  pro- 
mote the  pecuniary  advantage  of  his  own  clien- 
tele. Under  the  corrupting  influence  of  this  false 
conception  the  professional  politician  becomes 
scarcely  less  an  advocate  of  a  special  interest  in 
Congress  than  is  the  paid  counsel  before  the 
courts. 

But  the  evil  effect  of  this  point  of  view  does 


182  THE  SPIEIT  OP  DEMOCRACY 

not  stop  with  the  professional  politician.  The 
individual  voter  votes  for  his  own  interests :  one 
man  to  secure  a  higher  protection  for  his  manu- 
factured goods,  another  to  get  a  contract  from 
the  government,  a  third  to  get  a  job  from  the  con- 
tractor, and  a  fourth  to  get  a  five-dollar-bill  from 
the  political  committee.  The  story  is  told — I 
believe  it  is  authentic  —  that  a  Western  cowboy 
arrested  for  murder  wrote  to  Mr.  Roosevelt  for 
financial  aid  in  securing  competent  defense,  but 
subsequently  returned  the  contribution,  saying: 
"  I  do  not  need  it ;  we  have  elected  the  district 
attorney ! " 

It  is  high  time  we  changed  our  point  of  view ; 
high  time  that  we  realized  that  suffrage  is  not 
a  natural  right  —  is  not  a  right  at  all.  It  is  a 
sacred  duty;  a  right  only  as  every  man  has  a 
right  to  do  his  duty.  "  Public  office  is  a  public 
trust."  How  that  sentence  rang  through  the 
land !  It  was  better  than  a  speech.  Suffrage  is  a 
public  office,  and  therefore  a  public  trust,  and  no 
man  is  entitled  to  have  that  public  trust  commit- 
ted to  him  unless  he  is  at  least  able  to  govern 
himself.  The  Southern  States  have  in  this  re- 
spect set  an  example  which  it  would  be  well  if  it 
were  possible  for  all  the  States  to  follow.  Many 
of  them  have  adopted  in  their  Constitution  a 
qualified  suffrage.  The  qualifications  are  not  the 


WHO  SHOULD  GOVERN?  183 

same  in  all  the  States,  but  there  is  not  one  of 
those  States  in  which  every  man,  black  or  white, 
has  not  a  legal  right  to  vote  provided  he  can 
read  and  write  the  English  language,  owns  three 
hundred  dollars'  worth  of  property,  and  has  paid 
his  taxes.  A  provision  that  no  man  should  vote 
unless  he  has  intelligence  enough  to  read  and 
write,  thrift  enough  to  have  laid  up  three  hun- 
dred dollars'  worth  of  property,  and  patriotism 
enough  to  have  paid  his  taxes  would  not  be  a 
bad  provision  for  any  State  in  the  Union  to  in- 
corporate in  its  Constitution. 

We  talk  about  giving  to  the  negroes,  to  the 
Filipinos,  and  to  the  Porto  Ricans  self-govern- 
ment. What  President  Wilson,  of  Princeton  Uni- 
versity, has  said  on  this  subject  would  be  well 
worth  printing  on  a  card  and  sending  to  every 
voter :  — 

We  cannot  give  them  self-government.  Self-gov- 
ernment is  not  a  thing  that  can  be  "  given  "  to  any 
people,  because  it  is  a  form  of  character  and  not  a  form 
of  constitution.  No  people  can  be  "  given"  the  self-con- 
trol of  maturity.  Only  a  long  apprenticeship  of  obedi- 
ence can  secure  them  the  precious  possession,  a  thing 
no  more  to  be  bought  than  given.  They  cannot  be  pre- 
sented with  the  character  of  a  community,  but  it  may 
confidently  be  hoped  that  they  will  become  a  community 
under  the  wholesome  and  salutary  influences  of  just 
laws  and  a  sympathetic  administration ;  that  they  will 


184  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

after'a  while  understand  and  master  themselves,  if  in  the 
meantime  they  are  understood  and  served  in  good  con- 
science by  those  set  over  them  in  authority.1 

Hitherto  the  duty  of  protecting  the  funda- 
mental rights  of  persons  and  property  in  civilized 
communities  has  devolved  upon  the  men.  There 
is  a  small  but  very  earnest  minority  of  "women 
who  insist  that  women  should  share  in  this  duty 
of  protection.  Are  they  right?  Does  this  obliga- 
tion rest  upon  them,  or  are  they  exempt  from  it  ? 
To  answer  that  question  let  us  consider  briefly 
the  problem  of  life.  What  are  we  on  this  earth 
for?  Is  there  any  interpretation  of  its  enigma, 
any  rational  meaning  to  existence  ? 

We  are  born  ;  grow  up  in  families,  under  the 
protection  and  guidance  of  father  and  mother. 
We  are  nursed,  taught,  trained  for  life's  work. 
We  grow  to  maturity;  marry;  children  are  given 
to  us ;  we  provide  for  them  until  they  are  old 
enough  to  provide  for  themselves ;  govern  them 
until  they  are  old  enough  to  govern  themselves; 
then  they  marry  and  children  are  given  to 
them.  We  tarry  a  few  years  as  grandparents, 
to  enjoy  the  privilege  of  the  children  without 
the  responsibility,  and  then  pass  off  the  stage. 
And  so  the  process  goes  on  generation  after  gen- 

1  Woodrow  Wilson,  Constitutional  Government  in  the  United 
States,  p.  53. 


WHO  SHOULD  GOVERN?  185 

eration ;  every  generation  growing  a  little  in 
knowledge,  wisdom,  and  virtue;  but  each  mem- 
ber of  every  generation,  if  the  parents  are  cap- 
able and  efficient,  growing  from  ignorance  to 
knowledge,  from  folly  to  wisdom,  from  incapacity 
to  ability,  from  innocence  through  struggle  to 
virtue.  What  does  it  all  mean  ? 

What  can  it  mean  but  this  ?  that  we  are  in  one 
stage  of  an  existence  the  future  stages  of  which 
no  one  can  foresee  any  more  than  the  acorn  can 
foresee  the  oak  or  the  seed  the  flower,  or  the  cater- 
pillar the  butterfly.  What  can  it  mean  but  this? 
that  life  is  itself  a  preparation  for  life,  a  long 
schooling,  and  death  a  graduation. 

And  in  this  process  woman  is  the  creator  of 
life.  She  is  physiologically  its  creator.  She  is  in 
the  order  of  nature  the  custodian  of  the  infant 
in  all  the  earlier  stages  of  its  existence.  She  is 
the  one  who  feeds  and  nurses  and  leads  and  trains 
and  educates  it.  And  while  she  is  thus  absorbed 
in  the  highest  and  divinest  ministry,  in  serving  the 
very  end  of  life  itself,  the  man  is  the  bread-winner 
and  protector.  He  goes  out  to  wrest  from  nature 
food  for  the  supply  of  the  family.  If  enemies  at- 
tack it  from  without,  he  arises  to  defend  it  from 
assault.  If  criminals  by  violence  or  by  fraud  en- 
deavor to  rob  it  of  its  sustenance,  he  is  its  natural 
guardian  from  the  wrongdoer.  His  influence  is 


186  THE  SPIRIT  OP  DEMOCRACY 

not  unneeded  in  the  training  of  the  children,  but 
it  is  incidental  and  secondary ;  it  must  be  inci- 
dental and  secondary,  because,  if  mother  and 
child  are  to  be  fed,  sheltered,  and  protected,  he 
must  be,  during  most  of  the  hours  of  the  day, 
away  from  home.  There  is  a  pathetic  story  in  the 
Old  Testament,  a  transcript  from  life,  which  il- 
lustrates this  parental  relationship.  A  boy  is  with 
his  father  and  the  reapers  in  the  field.  The  hot 
sun  overpowers  him.  He  cries  out, "  My  head,  my 
head ! "  The  father  says  to  a  servant, "  Take  him  to 
his  mother,"  and  goes  on  with  his  work.  And  the 
child  lies  on  his  mother's  lap  until  noon,  and  then 
dies.  It  is  the  instinctive  message  of  father  and 
mother  the  world  over,  and  will  be  while  the  world 
stands.  From  the  father, "  Carry  the  child  to  his 
mother."  From  the  mother, "  Give  me  the  child." 
By  a  law  of  nature  written  in  the  constitution  of 
the  family,  written  in  her  constitution  and  in  his, 
written  in  their  physical  nature  and  in  their  mental 
and  moral  nature,  she  is  the  creator  of  life  and  the 
minister  to  life,  and  he  is  the  bread-winner  and 
protector  while  she  fulfills  her  sacred  task. 

If  she  is  wife  and  mother,  this  high,  sacred, 
supreme  creative  duty  demands  and  has  all  her 
thought,  all  her  life.  If  she  is  not,  still  she  finds 
in  supplemental  service  opportunities  for  this  min- 
istry to  life.  She  teaches  in  the  school,  she  nurses 


WHO  SHOULD  GOVERN?  187 

in  the  hospitals,  she  ministers  in  the  charities  of  the 
community  and  of  the  church,  she  cooperates  as 
domestic,  as  sister,  as  aunt,  with  the  overworked 
and  overburdened  mother  in  carrying  on  the  life 
of  the  household.  Hers  is  the  vital,  the  essential 
service.  His  is  necessary  that  she  may  do  hers. 
They  cannot  possibly  exchange.  In  the  nature  of 
the  case  he  never  can  do  hers.  Shall  she  take  his  in 
addition  to  her  own,  and  become  not  only  the  life- 
giver,  but  also  the  bread-winner  and  the  protector ; 
not  only  the  mother,  the  nurse,  the  teacher,  but 
also  the  magistrate,  the  policeman,  the  tiller  of 
the  soil,  the  sailor  of  the  ship,  the  worker  of  the 
town  ?  Can  she  do  both  and  do  them  well  ? 

I  do  not  wish  to  speak  in  derogation  of  the  ad- 
vocates of  woman  suffrage.  Among  them  are  some 
noble,  womanly  women,  driven  or  drawn  into  the 
movement  by  the  faith  that  the  suffrage  in 
woman's  hands  would  be  an  instrument  of  incal- 
culable value  in  the  work  of  life  ministry.  But  not 
many  of  the  mothers  devoting  their  lives  to  hus- 
band and  children  at  home,  not  many  of  the  teach- 
ers absorbed  in  the  fascinating  task  of  making 
men  and  women  out  of  boys  and  girls,  not  many 
of  the  women  active  in  the  philanthropic  work 
of  our  Christian  churches  or  in  our  public  chari- 
ties, are  among  those  whose  names  are  bruited 
in  the  newspapers  as  advocates  of  this  revolu- 


188  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

tion.  How  can  they  be?  They  have  too  much 
of  more  important  work  to  do.  How  can  the  agi- 
tators be  simultaneously  caring  for  their  own 
children  or  the  uncared-for  children  of  others? 
They  are  absorbed  in  the  one  task  of  getting  the 
ballot  as  the  one  important  and  essential  achieve- 
ment for  the  redemption  of  society. 

I  am  an  advocate  of  woman's  rights — her  right 
to  be  exempt  from  the  duty  of  protecting  persons 
and  property ;  to  be  exempt  from  sharing  in  the 
burdens  and  responsibilities  of  government ;  her 
right  to  give  herself  wholly  and  unreservedly  to 
the  task  which  God  has  given  her  of  being  the 
creator  and  developer  of  human  life,  the  maker 
of  character.  It  would  be  the  grossest  injustice 
for  us  men,  who  have  hitherto  had  this  duty  to 
perform,  to  shirk  our  duty  and  impose  it  upon 
women,  except  upon  the  most  conclusive  demon- 
stration that  she  desires  to  assume  it.  At  present 
all  the  evidence  points  us  to  the  conclusion  that  she 
has  no  such  desire.  This  is  indeed  an  uncontested 
point,  admitted  by  the  more  intelligent  and  fair- 
minded  of  the  advocates  of  the  great  revolution. 
And  I  urge  all  women  whom  my  voice  can  reach 
or  my  words  can  influence  not  to  follow  the  blind 
leaders  of  the  blind,  not  to  be  cheated  by  a  false 
political  philosophy  and  a  false  social  sentiment,  not 
to  turn  aside  from  their  great  vocation,  the  ministry 


WHO  SHOULD  GOVERN?  189 

to  life,  which  no  one  can  take  up  if  they  lay  it  down, 
in  order  that  they  may  take  up  the  lower  and  lesser 
vocation.  To  protect  life  and  property  is  not  so 
great  a  service  as  to  use  property  in  ministering 
to  life.  To  promote  by  political  action  the  gen- 
eral welfare  is  not  so  great  a  service  as  to  create 
and  develop  the  individual  for  whose  creation  and 
development  governments  exist,  and  whose  per- 
sonal character  is  the  supremest  factor  in  the 
general  well-being. 

How  shall  a  self-governing  community  ascer- 
tain the  judgment  and  the  will  of  the  members  of 
the  community?  In  a  pure  democracy  the  people 
pass  on  every  proposition,  as  in  the  old-time  New 
England  town  meeting  or  in  the  present  demo- 
cratic government  in  Switzerland.  In  representa- 
tive government  the  people  elect  representatives 
into  whose  hands  they  intrust  the  work  of  the 
government.  They  select  the  men,  but  the  work 
of  carrying  on  the  government  is  intrusted  to  the 
men  whom  they  select.  There  is  a  movement  in 
our  day  in  America  toward  more  pure  democracy, 
toward  less  representative  government.  Theoreti- 
cally we  elect  our  Presidents  by  an  electoral  col- 
lege ;  that  is,  by  representative  government.  In 
fact,  we  elect  them  by  a  popular  vote.  Theoreti- 
cally, the  election  of  our  Senators  is  left  to  the 
representative  bodies  in  the  various  States,  but  in 


190  THE  SPIRIT   OF  DEMOCRACY 

an  increasing  number  of  those  States  the  election 
is  generally  effected  by  the  people  directly. 

On  the  other  hand,  our  tendency  in  other  than 
political  circles  is  toward  representative  govern- 
ment rather  than  pure  democracy.  In  our  great 
corporations  the  stockholders  do  not  vote  on  such 
questions  as  what  stock  they  will  issue,  what 
branch  roads  they  will  build,  what  rates  they  will 
charge.  The  stockholders  elect  certain  trusted 
men,  and  leave  the  decision  of  these  questions  in 
their  hands.  As  in  the  great  commercial  enter- 
prises, so  in  the  great  philanthropic  and  religious 
organizations.  The  churches  do  not  pass  in  detail 
upon  the  questions  that  come  before  the  church. 
They  elect  a  board,  and  the  board  elects  an  execu- 
tive committee  and  secretaries,  and  the  adminis- 
tration in  detail  is  left  in  the  hands  of  these  ex- 
ecutive committees  and  of  the  secretaries.  I  need 
not  undertake  to  discuss  in  this  connection  the 
relative  advantages  of  pure  democracy  and  repre- 
sentative government.  It  is  enough  to  point  out 
to  my  readers  that  if  representative  government 
is  really  representative,  if  the  persons  elected  do 
really  represent  the  judgment  and  the  will  of  the 
electors,  a  representative  government  is  as  truly 
democratic  as  a  pure  democracy. 

Representative  government  has  been  injured 
in  our  country  by  the  false  notion  that  if  we  elect 


WHO  SHOULD  GOVERN?  191 

a  great  many  officials  we  are  more  democratic 
than  if  we  elect  a  few,  whereas,  in  fact,  we  are 
more  democratic  if  we  elect  a  few  than  if  we  elect 
many.  In  New  York  State  we  elect  a  Governor 
and  five  heads  of  departments:  a  Secretary  of 
State,  a  Comptroller,  an  Attorney-General,  a  State 
Engineer,  a  Treasurer.  How  many  New  York 
readers  of  this  book  could  tell  the  names  of  these 
officials  for  whom  many  of  those  readers  voted 
in  the  last  election?  Nay,  more  than  that  —  how 
many  think  themselves  competent  to  elect  an 
Attorney-General  or  a  State  Engineer  ?  I  confess 
frankly  that  I  am  not.  I  can  form  some  judg- 
ment as  to  the  man  who  I  am  willing  should  act 
for  me  in  choosing  an  Attorney-General  familiar 
with  the  law,  or  a  State  Engineer  competent  to 
supervise  the  engineering  work  of  the  State,  but 
I  have  neither  the  personal  knowledge  nor  the 
professional  knowledge  which  fits  me  to  make 
the  selection  myself. 

In  the  Federal  Government  we  pursue  a  wiser, 
and  really  a  more  democratic  course.  We  elect  a 
President  and  a  Vice-President,  and  the  President 
appoints  his  heads  of  departments.  He  can,  there- 
fore, rightly  be  held  responsible  for  all  that  is 
done,  or  left  undone,  in  the  various  departments. 
Under  the  present  method  in  our  Federal  elec- 
tions we  select  one  man  and  hold  him  responsible 


192  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

for  results ;  in  many  of  our  States,  in  New  York 
State,  for  example,  we  cast  our  vote  between  two 
sets  of  candidates  selected  for  us  by  leaders  whom 
we  often  do  not  know  and  whom  we  cannot  hold 
responsible  if  the  selection  does  not  prove  satis- 
factory. 

Government  is  by  parties,  and  in  a  self-gov- 
erning community  the  parties  ought  to  be  self- 
governing.  To-day  they  are  not  self-governing 
in  fact,  whatever  they  may  be  in  theory.  The 
forms  and  methods  differ  in  different  communities, 
but  the  following  description  may  serve  by  way 
of  illustration : 1  The  members  of  the  party  in  a 
given  district  meet  in  some  appointed  place  in 
what  is  known  as  a  primary.  In  fact,  the  meeting 
is  composed  almost  exclusively  of  place-hunters 
and  their  friends.  To  this  meeting  a  list  of  dele- 
gates to  a  nominating  convention,  or  a  series  of 
nominating  conventions,  is  presented  by  a  com- 
mittee which  is  practically  self -constituted,  al- 
though it  has  been  formally  elected  by  a  previous 
primary.  The  character  of  these  primaries  as 
conducted  in  the  "  good  old  times  "  —  that  is,  a 

1  I  follow  James  Bryce,  The  American  Commonwealth,  chaps, 
liz,  Ix,  Ixi,  and  Ixii.  Some  material  improvements  have  been 
made  and  in  some  of  the  States  radical  and  revolutionary 
changes  since  this  work  was  written  (1888),  but  it  still  remains 
an  excellent  description  of  the  primary  method  of  nomination  as 
devised  and  operated  by  the  professional  politician. 


WHO  SHOULD  GOVERN?  193 

quarter  of  a  century  ago  —  is  indicated  by  the 
fact,  reported  by  Mr.  Bryce,  that,  of  the  1007 
primaries  and  conventions  of  all  parties  held  in 
New  York  city  preparatory  to  the  election  of  1884, 
633  took  place  in  liquor  saloons. 

There  has  been  some  improvement  since  then, 
and  in  many  of  the  States  the  primaries  are  now 
recognized  and  regulated  by  law.  But  the  per- 
sonnel remains  largely  what  it  was  formerly.  If 
independent  voters  attend,  they  are  generally 
outvoted,  or,  if  that  by  any  chance  proves  impos- 
sible, they  are  outmaneuvered,  and  the  prepared 
list  of  delegates  put  forward  by  the  Committee 
is  elected  either  without  opposition  or  despite  an 
opposition  which  is  futile.  These  delegates  attend 
the  nominating  conventions  —  town,  county, 
and  State  —  and  nominate  the  candidates  previ- 
ously designated  by  the  committee,  and  usually 
previously  designated  to  the  committee  by  the 
boss.  So  well  is  this  understood  that  newspaper 
men,  when  the  convention  meets,  rarely  inter- 
view the  delegates,  except  such  as  are  known  to 
be  near  the  boss  and  likely  to  be  acquainted  with 
his  orders.  Occasionally  public  sentiment  in  a 
State  runs  so  strongly  for  a  particular  man  that 
the  boss  yields,  or  the  convention  overrules  the 
boss.  But  this  rarely  happens,  and  it  never 
happens  except  in  the  case  of  some  important 


194  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

office,  like  that  of  Governor  or  United  States 
Senator.  When  the  election  takes  place,  the  two 
sets  of  candidates  nominated  in  this  fashion, 
nominally  by  a  convention,  really  by  a  small 
and  irresponsible  committee,  or  a  still  smaller 
and  more  irresponsible  boss,  are  put  before 
the  voter,  and  his  sole  function  in  politics  is 
to  select  between  the  two.  How  far  this  method 
of  nominating  a  host  of  candidates  for  all  the 
offices,  and  nominating  them  by  an  irresponsible 
oligarchy,  is  from  self-government  the  following 
paragraph  from  Mr.  Bryce's  "American  Com- 
monwealth" makes  very  clear:  — 

The  elective  offices  are  so  numerous  that  ordinary 
citizens  cannot  watch  them,  and  cease  to  care  who  gets 
them.  The  conventions  come  so  often  that  busy  men 
cannot  serve  in  them.  The  minor  offices  are  so  unat- 
tractive that  able  men  do  not  stand  for  them.  The 
primary  lists  are  so  contrived  that  only  a  fraction  of 
the  party  get  on  them ;  and  of  this  fraction  many  are 
too  lazy  or  too  busy  or  too  careless  to  attend.  The 
mass  of  the  voters  are  ignorant;  knowing  nothing 
about  the  personal  merits  of  the  candidates,  they  are 
ready  to  follow  their  leaders  like  sheep.  Even  the 
better  class,  however  they  may  grumble,  are  swayed 
by  the  inveterate  habit  of  party  loyalty  and  prefer  a 
bad  candidate  of  their  own  to  a  (probably  not  better) 
candidate  of  the  other  party.  It  is  less  trouble  to  put 
up  with  impure  officials,  costly  city  government,  a  job- 


WHO  SHOULD  GOVERN?  195 

bing  State  legislature,  an  inferior  sort  of  congressman, 
than  to  sacrifice  one's  own  business  in  the  effort  to 
set  things  right.  Thus  the  Machine  works  on,  and 
grinds  out  places,  power,  and  the  opportunities  for  il- 
licit gain  for  those  who  manage  it. 

The  remedy  for  this  condition  is  very  plain :  it 
is  such  a  reconstruction  of  party  machinery  that 
the  voters  will  be  enabled  not  merely  to  choose 
between  candidates  placed  before  them,  but  also 
to  determine  who  those  candidates  shall  be.  Vari- 
ous plans  have  been  proposed,  and  some  plans  are 
now  on  trial,  having  for  their  desired  object  the 
accomplishment  of  this  result.  It  does  not  come 
within  the  scope  of  this  book  to  discuss  the  mer- 
its of  these  different  plans.  Such  comparative 
study  as  I  have  been  able  to  give  to  them  leads 
me  to  regard  as  the  best  method  yet  devised  the 
one  urged  by  Governor  Hughes  on  the  Legisla- 
ture of  New  York  State.  That  plan  would  ap- 
pear, more  successfully  than  any  other  of  those 
proposed,  to  secure  party  organization  and  effi- 
ciency and  at  the  same  time  to  put  them  under 
democratic  control.  Two  things  are,  however,  to 
me  very  clear :  on  the  one  hand,  that  any  efficient 
plan  of  transferring  political  power  from  the  oli- 
garchy to  the  people  will  be  fought  by  resource- 
ful and  unscrupulous  politicians ;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  the  increasing  insistence  of  an 


196  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

awakened  people  on  their  rights  and  duties  will 
eventually  perfect  the  machinery  of  a  self-gov- 
erning Republic  by  making  the  parties  self-gov- 
erning. 

Our  free  institutions  are  threatened  by  two 
foes :  plutocracy  and  mobocracy,  lawless  wealth 
and  lawless  passion.  These  are  the  two  serpents 
that  have  always  come  up  out  of  the  sea  to 
strangle  liberty.  They  destroyed  Greece;  they 
destroyed  Rome ;  will  they  destroy  America  ? 
America  as  a  self-governing  community  is  as  yet 
only  in  its  experimental  stage.  We  can  hand  it 
down  to  our  posterity  purified  and  strengthened, 
only  by  being  true  to  the  oath  which  Abraham 
Lincoln,  in  one  of  his  early  public  addresses,  pro- 
posed to  the  young  men  of  Springfield,  Illinois : 
"Let  every  American,  every  lover  of  liberty, 
every  well-wisher  to  his  posterity,  swear  by  the 
blood  of  the  Revolution  never  to  violate  in  the 
least  particular  the  laws  of  the  country,  and 
never  to  tolerate  their  violation  by  others."  We 
must  recognize  the  divine  nature  of  law  and  its 
sacred  sanctions ;  we  must  make  the  Republic 
not  only  a  community  of  self-governing  indivi- 
duals but  a  self-governing  community ;  we  must 

1  Address  before  the  Young  Men's  Lyceum  of  Springfield, 
Illinois,  January  27,  1837.  Complete  Works,  p.  12. 


WHO  SHOULD  GOVERN?  197 

cure  the  evils  of  "present  democracy  by  a  truer 
and  more  consistent  democracy  ;  we  must  recon- 
cile liberty  and  law  by  making  law  the  instru- 
ment of  liberty ;  and  we  must  carry  both  liberty 
and  law  not  only  into  our  government  but  into 
all  our  institutions.  We  who  have  emancipated 
the  laborer  from  chains  must  emancipate  him 
from  dependence  on  the  capitalists;  we  must  be- 
gin by  making  capitalists  and  laborers  partners 
in  a  common  enterprise,  and  end  by  making  the 
capitalists  also  laborers  and  the  laborers  also  cap- 
italists. We  must  bring  the  home,  the  school,  and 
the  church  into  a  closer  and  more  cordial  coop- 
eration in  the  work  of  education,  and  so  extend 
that  education,  both  in  the  character  of  the  sub- 
jects treated  and  in  the  classes  of  population 
taught,  that  it  will  provide  a  fair  equipment  of 
all  the  people,  in  all  the  arts  of  life,  for  all  hon- 
orable vocations,  and  so  fit  them  by  self-educa- 
tion to  be  both  self-supporting  and  self-govern- 
ing. And  we  must  recognize  the  home  as  the 
fundamental  social  organization,  underlying  all 
other  organizations,  and  marriage  as  no  mere 
commercial  or  social  partnership  founded  on 
contract,  but  a  divine  order  founded  on  the  nat- 
ural comradeship  between  man  and  woman,  who 
are  essentially  different  and  essentially  equal. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE   SPIRIT   OF   DEMOCRACY   IN   RELIGION 

TRUE  religion  is  the  same  in  all  ages :  "  The  life 
of  God  in  the  soul  of  man."  It  is  doing  justly, 
loving  mercy,  and  walking  humbly  with  God  ;  it 
is  faith  and  hope  and  love;  it  is  realizing  the 
invisible  world,  aspiring  toward  a  divine  future, 
seeking  the  well-being  of  others. 

But  because  it  is  life  it  changes  from  age  to 
age.  "  When  I  was  a  child,"  says  Paul,  "  I  spake 
as  a  child,  I  understood  as  a  child,  I  thought  as 
a  child ;  but  when  I  became  a  man,  I  put  away 
childish  things."  The  man  not  only  speaks  a 
different  language  from  the  child,  he  apprehends 
life  differently,  he  thinks  different  thoughts,  and 
has  different  experiences.  The  faith  of  a  man  is 
not  a  child's  faith ;  his  hopes  are  different,  his 
loves  are  different.  The  religion  of  the  twentieth 
century  and  of  the  first  century  are  the  same  — 
that  is,  they  are  both  the  life  of  God  in  the  soul 
of  man.  Yet  they  are  different,  as  the  life  of  na- 
ture is  different  in  October  from  the  life  of  nature 
in  May.  Religion  is  a  working  life,  therefore  it 
has  an  organization  —  a  church ;  it  is  an  intel- 


SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY  IN  RELIGION    199 

lectual  life,  therefore  it  has  ordered  thought  — 
a  theology ;  it  is  an  emotional  life,  therefore 
it  has  an  experience  and  a  worship.  And  this 
church,  this  theology,  this  experience  and  wor- 
ship, change  in  the  race  as  in  the  individual. 
The  religious  life  is  not  the  same  in  a  democratic 
as  in  an  autocratic  society. 

Christianity,  passing  out  from  Judea  into  Rome, 
passed  from  a  partially  democratic  into  a  wholly 
autocratic  world.  It  transformed  the  world,  but 
was  itself  transformed.  The  Church  of  Rome  is 
not  a  copy  of  the  Jewish  synagogue ;  the  theology 
of  Augustine  is  not  a  copy  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount ;  the  worship  of  the  mass  is  not  patterned 
after  the  primitive  prayer-meetings  described  in 
the  Books  of  Acts.  The  Church  of  Rome  was  an 
imperial  church  with  a  supreme  pontiff  whose 
power  was  autocratic,  whose  word  was  final.  The 
theology  of  Latin  Christians  was  an  imperial  the- 
ology :  God  was  King ;  law  was  his  edict ;  the 
Bible  was  a  book  of  laws ;  its  canons  of  inter- 
pretation were  legal  canons ;  sin  was  rebellion ; 
forgiveness  was  remission  of  penalty  ;  atonement 
was  transfer  of  penalty  from  the  guilty  to  the 
innocent.  Man  is  not  a  bundle  of  separated  fac- 
ulties. His  experience  determines  his  thinking ; 
his  thinking  colors  his  experiences.  In  this  im- 
perial religion  worship  was  a  petition  for  pardon 


200  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

by  rebellious  but  penitent  subjects,  addressing  a 
justly  indignant  sovereign  whose  gracious  par- 
don was  besought  by  intercessors  and  purchased 
by  the  offering  of  a  perpetual  but  bloodless  sac- 
rifice. 

Changes  in  organization  are  more  easily  effected 
than  changes  in  habits  of  thought  or  in  types 
of  experience.  The  religious  revolution  which 
for  the  Protestant  world  overthrew  autocracy  in 
church  government  has  more  gradually  intro- 
duced the  democratic  spirit  into  the  thought  of 
the  Church,  and  still  more  gradually  into  the  ex- 
perience of  Christians.  But  we  are  coming  to  a 
consciousness  of  the  change  which  that  spirit  is 
effecting.  In  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  we  call 
it  Modernism ;  in  the  Protestant  Church  we  call 
it  sometimes  the  New  Theology,  sometimes  the 
Spirit  of  Humanitarianism.  It  is  criticised  as  an 
innovation  and  condemned  as  a  heresy;  but  I 
believe  that  it  is  a  new  phase  in  the  victory  of 
Hebraism  over  paganism,  of  a  democratic  Chris- 
tianity over  a  pagan  autocracy.  The  democratic, 
that  is  the  Christian,  spirit  is  transfusing  our 
thoughts  and  our  experiences  as  well  as  our  po- 
litical and  religious  organizations;  and  we  are 
trying,  half  consciously,  to  readjust  to  the  new 
conditions  our  intellectual  and  spiritual  expres- 
sions. The  democratic  spirit  does  not  deny  the 


SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY  IN  RELIGION    201 

affirmations  of  the  autocratic  religion ;  it  reaf- 
firms them,  but  it  gives  to  them  a  new  signifi- 
cance. It  conceives  that  God  is  a  Sovereign ; 
that  laws  emanate  from  him ;  that  the  Bible  is  a 
trustworthy  interpretation  of  those  laws;  that 
sin  is  lawlessness ;  that  forgiveness  involves 
some  remission  of  penalty;  and  that  it  is  ac- 
complished through  the  offering  of  sacrifice. 
But  filled  with  the  democratic,  that  is  the  Chris- 
tian, spirit,  the  legalistic  theology  ceases  to  be 
legalistic  and  becomes  spiritual,  ceases  to  be  su- 
pernatural and  is  becoming  more  frankly  human 
because  more  truly  divine. 

There  is  no  better  definition  of  Political  De- 
mocracy than  Abraham  Lincoln's  t(  Government 
of  the  people,  by  the  people,  for  the  people."  It 
is  the  doctrine  of  Political  Democracy  that  the 
source  of  authority  is  in  the  people  and  that 
authority  is  to  be  exercised  by  the  people  and  for 
their  benefit.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  Industrial  De- 
mocracy that  the  source  of  wealth  is  in  the  people 
and  wealth  is  to  be  used  by  the  people  and  for 
their  benefit.  The  doctrine  of  Religious  Demo- 
cracy may  be  similarly  expressed :  Religion  is  of 
the  people,  by  the  people,  for  the  people.  The 
source  of  the  religious  life  is  in  human  nature  ; 
its  instruments  and  institutions  exist  for  men 
and  are  to  be  controlled  by  men.  Religion  is  the 


202  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

natural  life  of  man, — his  privilege  and  preroga- 
tive, his  inheritance  and  equipment.  It  is  the 
democratic  spirit  in  religion  which  is  making 
those  changes  in  religious  thought  and  life  which 
are  the  despair  of  some,  a  sacrilege  to  many, 
but  a  joy  and  inspiration  to  an  increasing  num- 
ber. 

The  democratic  spirit  regards,  or  is  slowly  com- 
ing to  regard,  the  religious  life  as  the  natural  life  of 
man,  and  irreligion  as  unnatural.  It  regards  reli- 
gion as  a  life  developed  in  man,  not  as  something 
external  imposed  upon  him.  It  esteems  that  life 
as  supernatural  in  no  other  sense  than  as  art  life, 
or  musical  life,  or  literary  life,  or  business  life  is 
supernatural — supernatural  because  in  God  we 
live  and  move  and  have  our  being.  Jesus  com- 
pares the  Kingdom  of  God  to  a  seed  which 
groweth  up  secretly ;  for  the  earth,  he  says, 
bringeth forth  of  herself.  The  democratic  spirit 
accepts  this  figure  as  an  interpretation  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  in  the  individual  soul :  the  soul 
bringeth  forth  of  itself.  God,  says  the  Hebrew 
Psalm  of  Creation,  made  man  in  his  own  image 
and  breathed  into  him  the  breath  of  life.  The 
democratic  spirit  believes  this  to  be  true  of  all 
men  —  Jew  and  Gentile,  Christian  and  pagan, 
saint  and  sinner.  We  are  his  offspring,  says  Paul, 
and  in  saying  that  he  quotes  a  heathen  poet.  The 


SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY  IN  RELIGION    203 

democratic  spirit  believes  that  the  publicans  and 
sinners  are  the  offspring  of  God.  It  believes  not 
less  in  the  divineness  of  religion,  but  more ;  as 
the  gardener  who  believes  that  plants  without 
the  hothouse  live  not  less  by  the  warmth  of  the 
sun  than  those  within. 

The  democratic  spirit  identifies  the  laws  of  na- 
ture with  the  laws  of  God.  The  moral  law,  like 
natural  law,  is  not  imposed  from  without ;  it  is 
constituted  within.  It  was  not  given  to  man,  it 
was  created  in  man,  or,  if  the  reader  prefer,  it  was 
given  to  him  in  and  by  his  creation.  Thou  shalt 
not  kill,  thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,  thou 
shalt  not  steal,  thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness, 
were  all  written  in  the  conscience  of  man  before 
they  were  written  on  tables  of  stone.  They  would 
be  just  as  obligatory  if  they  had  not  been  written 
on  tables  of  stone.  They  are  just  as  obligatory  on 
those  who  have  never  heard  of  the  tables  of  stone. 
When  Jesus  Christ  says,  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thy  heart  and  soul  and  mind 
and  strength,  what  he  says  to  us  is :  That  is  what 
you  were  made  for  ;  love  is  your  natural  aptitude ; 
you  were  fitted  for  love  as  the  fish  for  the  sea  and 
the  bird  for  the  air. 

The  democratic  spirit  finds  the  authority  and 
source  of  religion,  not  in  priests  or  prophets,  past 
or  present — that  is,  neither  in  the  Book  nor  in 


204  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

the  Church — but  in  the  soul's  own  recognition 
of  its  divinely  ordered  duties  and  divinely  be- 
stowed privileges.  The  Church  is  an  authority  in 
so  far  as  it  gives  true  expression  to  the  spiritual 
consciousness  of  spiritual  souls.  The  Bible  is  an 
authority  in  so  far  as  it  is  an  expression  of  spir- 
itual experience  by  men  of  a  truly  spiritual  na- 
ture, whose  experiences  have  power  to  awaken  an 
indorsing  echo  in  our  own  souls. 

It  is  this  power  in  the  Bible  to  awaken  a  re- 
sponse in  our  own  souls  that  makes  it  a  revelation. 
Revealing  is  unveiling ;  discovery  is  uncovering. 
The  two  processes  are  identical ;  the  two  words 
are  synonymous.  That  theology  uses  one  and 
science  the  other  is  not  material.  The  scientist 
sees  bacteria  in  the  blood ;  they  were  always  there, 
but  he  uncovers  them.  He  says,  If  you  will  look 
through  the  microscope,  you  can  see  them  for 
yourself.  And  we  do.  The  prophet  sees  God  in 
nature  and  in  his  own  soul.  God  was  always  there; 
the  prophet  unveils  him.  Then  he  says,  If  you  will 
look  for  yourself,  you  also  can  see  him.  And  we 
do.  Professor  Huxley  watches  the  development 
of  a  plant  or  an  animal  from  its  embryo;  wrought 
"  in  so  artistic  a  way  that,  after  watching  the 
process  hour  by  hour,  one  is  almost  involuntarily 
possessed  by  the  notion  that  some  more  subtle  aid 
to  vision  than  an  achromatic  would  show  the  hid- 


SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY  IN  RELIGION    205 

den  artist  —  with  his  plan  before  him  —  striving 
with  skillful  manipulation  to  perfect  his  work."  l 
This  is  revelation  —  unveiling.  Matthew  Arnold 
watches  the  development  of  spiritual  life  in  the 
history  of  human  society  and  in  the  biography 
of  the  individual  soul,  and  gives  to  the  skeptic 
this  counsel :  "  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  they 
ask,  'How  are  we  to  verify  that  there  rules  an 
enduring  Power  not  ourselves,  which  makes 
for  righteousness  ? '  —  we  may  answer  at  once : 
( How  ?  Why,  as  you  verify  that  fire  burns  —  by 
experience  !  It  is  so ;  try  it !  you  can  try  it ;  every 
case  of  conduct,  of  that  which  is  more  than  three- 
fourths  of  your  own  life  and  of  the  life  of  all 
mankind,  will  prove  it  to  you.' " 2 

God  is  revealed  to  us  when  he  is  unveiled  to 
us,  the  Master  Workman  in  nature,  the  guiding 
Personality  in  history,  the  Life  of  the  individual 
soul.  The  experience  of  God  in  others  when  it 
awakens  a  similar  experience  in  us  is  a  revela- 
tion ;  if  it  awakens  no  such  experience  in  us,  it  is 
no  revelation.  Thus  the  Twenty-third  Psalm  is  a 
revelation  to  some  readers  and  not  a  revelation 
to  others.  The  democratic  spirit  looks  upon  the 
Bible  as  a  volume  of  illuminating  and  inspiring 
human  experiences ;  it  believes  that  there  is  no  ex- 


1  Lay  Sermons,  p.  260. 

*  Literature  and  Dogma,  p.  267. 


206  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

perience  in  the  Book  that  has  not  its  counterpart 
in  modern  spiritual  experiences.  It  values  the 
Book  not  as  a  substitute  for  such  experiences  but 
as  a  means  of  awakening  them  in  the  spirit  of 
the  reader.  When  the  minister  attempts  to  make 
the  Bible  speak  to  this  democratic  age  with  the 
kind  of  authority  with  which  it  spoke  to  a  former 
autocratic  age,  he  simply  closes  the  minds  of  his 
hearers  against  its  message. 

In  the  Protestant  churches,  which  are  the  chil- 
dren of  the  democratic  movement,  the  autocratic 
authority  of  the  Church  is  vehemently  denied. 
Even  in  the  Catholic  Church  (whether  Roman 
or  Anglican),  the  spirit  of  Modernism  is  endea- 
voring to  reconcile  loyalty  to  the  Church  as 
the  ultimate  authority  with  the  democratic  spirit. 
It  does  not  succeed  and  cannot.  The  question 
between  Protestantism  and  Catholicism  is  not  a 
mere  question  of  theological  creed  or  ecclesiasti- 
cal order.  It  is  vital  and  fundamental :  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  source  and  authority  of  reli- 
gion resides  in  a  divinely  constituted  organization, 
from  which  we  are  to  receive  our  instructions 
and  our  commands,  as  children  from  their  father, 
or  whether  the  source  and  authority  of  religion 
is  in  the  people,  and  the  voice  of  the  Church  or 
the  churches,  whether  ancient  or  modern,  is  the 
voice  of  a  common  spiritual  consciousness,  in 


SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY  IN  RELIGION    207 

which  we  find  authority  as  we  find  it  in  the  con- 
current testimony  of  many  witnesses  to  any  facts 
of  life,  whether  it  be  physical  or  spiritual ;  the 
question  whether  God's  inspiring  and  counseling 
presence  is  universal  and  brings  with  it  a  gift  of 
eternal  life  which  is  as  free  to  all  as  the  air  we 
breathe  and  the  sunshine  which  vitalizes  and  em- 
powers us,  or  whether  eternal  life,  bestowed  by 
an  absentee  God,  is  piped  and  conduited  through 
an  appointed  hierarchy,  from  whom  alone  the 
laity  can  receive  it.  It  must  be  added  that  if 
Modernists  find  it  difficult  to  maintain  a  doctrine 
and  practice  of  liberty  in  an  autocratic  church, 
Protestant  doctors  of  divinity  find  it  not  less 
difficult  to  maintain  a  doctrine  of  ecclesiastical 
authority  in  churches  increasingly  pervaded  by 
the  democratic  spirit. 

Because  thus  the  democratic  spirit  finds  the  au- 
thority of  both  Book  and  Church  in  the  response 
which  the  awakened  spiritual  life  of  the  individ- 
ual makes,  it  takes  but  a  languid  interest  in  the 
subject  of  miracles.  If  the  authority  of  religion 
is  external,  if  it  is  in  messengers  of  an  olden  time 
speaking  for  God,  we  have  a  right  to  demand 
some  authentication  of  their  right  to  speak.  But 
if  the  authority  is  in  the  Voice  within  our  own 
souls,  whether  the  marvelous  events  recorded  in 
the  Bible  took  place  as  recorded  or  whether  some 


208  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

did  and  some  did  not  take  place,  becomes  a  his- 
torical, not  a  religious  question.  To  one  who 
believes  that  God  is  always  in  nature  and  in  man, 
it  is  neither  incredible  that  there  should  have 
been  at  times  clearer  and  more  striking,  or  at 
least  more  visible  and  material  evidences  of  his 
presence  than  there  are  now,  nor,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  evidences  such  as  are  now  passed  by 
without  being  interpreted  or  even  scarcely  ob- 
served, save  as  curious  phenomena,  had  in  former 
times  their  inner  and  spiritual  significance  better 
interpreted.  But  it  is  also  true  that,  since  our 
faith  does  not  depend  upon  those  interpretations, 
doubts  concerning  them  do  little  to  disturb  our 
faith.  One  who  believes  in  the  universal  pre- 
sence of  God  finds  it  both  less  difficult  and  less 
important  to  believe  in  certain  unusual  indica- 
tions of  that  presence  in  ancient  times  as  he  finds 
them  reported  in  the  Bible. 

How  does  the  democratic  spirit  regard  Jesus 
Christ  ? 

The  democratic  spirit  is  no  longer  interested 
in  the  old  debates  about  the  Person  of  Christ 
and  is  not  satisfied  with  the  old  definitions.  The 
various  theological  questions  which  are  different 
forms  of  the  one  question,  What  is  the  meta- 
physical relation  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the  Infinite  ? 
does  not  interest;  the  old  definition  of  Christ  as 


SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY  IN  RELIGION    209 

"the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  Begotten  of 
his  Father  before  all  worlds  ;  God  of  God,  Light 
of  Light,  very  God  of  very  God ;  Begotten  not 
made ;  Being  of  one  substance  with  the  Father," 
does  not  satisfy.  When,  on  special  days,  the  Ni- 
cene  Creed  is  repeated,  its  phraseology  is  regarded, 
I  venture  to  say,  by  most  worshipers  as  the  lan- 
guage of  reverence,  not  of  exact  definition.  The 
Trinitarian  churches  have  hundreds  of  members 
who  could  not  tell  whether  they  are  Trinitarians 
or  Unitarians,  and  thousands  of  members  who 
could  not  tell  why  they  are  Trinitarians. 

And  yet  it  is  certain  that  the  tendency  in 
democracy  is  toward  an  increasing,  not  a  lessen- 
ing, reverence  for  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  The  multi- 
plicity of  lives  of  Christ  written  by  representa- 
tives of  every  school  of  thought,  the  regard  with 
which,  with  hardly  an  exception,  his  name  and 
character  are  treated  by  these  various  authors, 
the  direct  testimony  to  his  character  and  influ- 
ence by  orthodox  and  liberal,  Catholic  and  Pro- 
testant, Jew,  Gentile,  and  Christian,  indicate  a  re- 
markable and  growing  unity  of  reverence  for  his 
life  and  character.  Among  the  books  in  my  library 
is  a  recent  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John 
written  by  a  Brahmin  for  Brahminical  readers, 
and  one  on  the  Synoptic  Gospels  written  by  a 
Jew  for  Jewish  readers  j  in  both  Jesus  is  treated 


210  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

as  an  eminent  if  not  a  supreme  teacher  of  the  reli- 
gion of  the  Spirit.  The  closing  sentences  of  Re- 
nan's  "  Life  of  Jesus  "  are  a  classic :  "  Whatever 
unlooked-for  events  the  future  may  have  in  store, 
Jesus  will  never  be  surpassed.  His  worship  will 
increasingly  renew  its  youth ;  his  story  will  call 
forth  endless  tears  ;  his  suffering  will  subdue  the 
noblest  heart ;  all  ages  will  proclaim  that  among 
the  sons  of  men  no  one  has  been  born  who  is 
greater  than  he." 

Whether  democratic  Christianity  will  attempt 
a  new  definition  of  Jesus  Christ  may  be  doubted. 
Perhaps  it  will  be  content  simply  to  listen  to  him 
and  follow  him  without  defining  him.  As  yet  it 
has  furnished  no  better  definition  than  that  sug- 
gested by  Henry  van  Dyke  in  the  phrase  "  the 
human  life  of  God."  In  this  sentence  is  indicated 
the  direction  in  which  we  are  to  look  for  the  re- 
conciliation between  the  belief  of  the  democratic 
spirit  that  the  source  and  authority  of  religion 
is  in  the  people  and  the  reverence  of  the  demo- 
cratic spirit  for  Jesus  Christ  as  the  supreme 
expression  of  the  religious  life. 

While  the  faith  of  the  future  in  Jesus  Christ 
cannot  now  be  formulated,  certain  things  may  be 
said  respecting  it,  with  a  considerable  degree  of 
certainty. 

Jesus  Christ  is,  not  the  founder  of  religion. 


SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY  IN  RELIGION    211 

Religion  existed  before  he  was  born,  and  exists 
to-day  among  many  peoples  who  have  scarcely 
even  heard  of  his  name.  He  is  not  the  founder 
of  a  special  religion.  For  a  special  religion  must 
have  its  creed,  its  ritual,  and  its  ecclesiastical 
organization;  and  Jesus]  Christ  formulated  no 
creed,  prescribed  no  ritual,  and  framed  no  eccle- 
siastical organization.1 

Jesus  Christ  defined  his  own  mission  in  the 
memorable  words,  "  I  am  come  that  they  might 
have  life,  and  that  they  might  have  it  more  abun- 
dantly." He  was  and  is  a  life-giver.  This  life  is 
religion :  the  religion  of  faith  and  hope  and  love ; 
the  religion  of  doing  justly,  loving  mercy,  and 
walking  humbly  with  God.  Of  this  life  his  own 
is  a  supreme  example  —  an  example  possible  for 
us  to  follow.  It  is  characteristically  a  human  life. 
To  do  justly  means  to  the  Christian  to  act  in  hu- 
man dealings  in  the  spirit  in  which  Jesus  Christ 
acted  ;  to  love  mercy  means  to  the  Christian  to 
have  compassion  on  the  suffering  and  the  sinful 
as  Jesus  Christ  had  compassion  ;  to  walk  humbly 
with  God  means  to  the  Christian  to  live  in  the 

1  Even  Catholic  scholars,  who  hold  that  Jesus  Christ  ap- 
pointed his  Apostles  and  their  successors  to  be  the  authoritative 
heads  of  the  Church,  will  hardly  affirm  that  he  did  more  than 
authorize  them  to  frame  the  organization  of  the  future  ecclesi- 
astical body  ;  and  no  one  affirms  that  Jesus  Christ  formulated  a 
creed  or  prescribed  a  ritual. 


212  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

same  filial  relation  with  the  Father  in  which  Jesus 
Christ  habitually  lived.  To  all  who  profess  and 
call  themselves  Christians  the  Christian  religion 
can  mean  nothing  less  than  this.  And  this  is 
both  a  divine  life  and  a  human  life  ;  a  divine  life 
because  it  is  a  human  life,  and  a  human  life  be- 
cause it  is  a  divine  life.  For  there  is  no  differ- 
ence. And  he  who  manifests  the  ideal  human 
life  does,  by  so  manifesting  the  ideal  human  life, 
reveal,  that  is,  unveil,  the  divine  life  —  "the 
human  life  of  God." 

To  say  that  the  source  and  authority  of  Chris- 
tianity are  in  Jesus  Christ  is  to  say  that  they  are 
in  human  nature,  for  Jesus  Christ  is  the  repre- 
sentative type  in  history  of  what  human  nature 
is  in  the  conception  of  Him  who  has  made  man 
in  His  own  image.  If  any  of  my  readers  are  in- 
clined to  start  back  at  this  statement,  let  them 
ask  themselves  what  John  means  when  he  says 
that  as  he  was  so  are  we  to  be  in  this  world ; 
what  Paul  means  when  he  says  that  God  has  pre- 
destined us  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his 
Son  that  he  might  be  the  first-born  among  many 
brethren;  what  Jesus  himself  means  when  he  prays 
that  we  may  be  one  in  him  and  the  Father,  as  he 
was  one  in  the  Father,  that  the  glory  which  the 
Father  had  given  him  he  gave  to  us,  and  that  as 
he  was  sent  into  the  world  he  in  like  manner  sends 


SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY  IN  RELIGION    213 

us  into  the  world ;  or  what  the  New  Testament 
means  by  applying  to  Christians  in  a  modified 
form  almost,  if  not  quite,  all  the  titles  it  ap- 
plies to  Christ.  He  is  the  Well-Beloved  Son  of 
God,  and  we  are  sons  of  God ;  he  is  the  Light  of 
the  World,  and  we  are  lights  of  the  world;  he  is 
the  Great  High  Priest,  and  we  are  priests  unto 
God ;  he  is  the  great  Sacrifice,  and  we  are  told  to 
offer  ourselves  a  living  sacrifice ;  he  forgives  our 
sins,  and  whosesoever  sins  we  remit  are  remitted 
unto  them  ;  he  is  filled  with  all  the  fullness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily,  and  we  are  bid  to  pray  that  we 
may  be  filled  with  all  the  fullness  of  God ;  he  is  in 
us  the  hope  of  glory ;  we  are  to  be  crucified  with 
him  and  we  are  already  risen  with  him.  The 
democratic  spirit  in  religion,  which  holds  as  its 
fundamental  faith  that  religion  is  a  privilege  and 
prerogative  of  human  nature,  and  that  in  human 
nature  we  are  to  look  for  both  the  source  and  the 
authority  of  religion,  finds  its  supremest  evidence 
and  illustration  of  this  faith  in  the  life  and  char- 
acter of  Jesus  the  Christ. 

It  needs  not  many  words  to  indicate  that,  if 
religion  is  of  the  people,  it  is  also  for  the  people 
and  by  the  people.  If  the  spirit  of  faith  and  hope 
and  love  is  inherent  in  the  human  spirit,  as  are  the 
appetites  and  passions  in  the  human  body,  then 
it  cannot  be  other  than  a  universal  religion.  This 


214  THE  SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY 

life  is  not  for  the  Jews  only,  but  also  for  the  Gen- 
tiles ;  not  for  the  baptized  only,  but  also  for  the 
unbaptized;  not  for  the  elect  only,  but  also  for 
the  non-elect ;  not  for  the  saints  only,  who  give 
themselves  up  to  lives  of  meditation  and  prayer, 
but  for  the  average  man,  and  is  fitted  to  inspire 
and  control  the  average  life.  It  belongs  not  to 
Jews  as  Jews,  nor  to  Christians  as  Christians,  nor 
to  saints  as  saints,  but  to  man  as  man.  Some  spir- 
itual souls  are  more  fruitful  than  others,  but  there 
are  no  arid  lands.  Spiritual  suicide  may  be  possible ; 
personally,  I  think  it  is.  But  spiritual  life  is  cer- 
tainly possible;  no  man  is  shut  out  from  it.  Pagan 
religions  are  not  devilish  imitations  devised  to  de- 
ceive the  unwary.  They  are  real  beginnings  of  a 
life  which  has  its  supremest  inspiration  and  its 
supremest  manifestation  in  Jesus  the  Christ.  And 
it  is  for  this  reason  that  he  is  the  Christ.1 

Because  this  religion  of  faith  and  hope  and 
love,  of  doing  justly  and  loving  mercy  and  walk- 
ing humbly  with  God,  is  the  universal  inheritance 
of  the  human  race,  it  knits  us  together  in  the  bond 
of  a  fellowship  which  transcends  all  other  fellow- 
ships. Political  Democracy  unites  us  in  nations, 
Industrial  Democracy  in  trades,  Educational  De- 
mocracy in  a  Republic  of  Letters;  but  Religious 
Democracy  unites  men  of  all  nationalities,  trades, 

1  Philippians  ii,  5-11. 


SPIRIT  OF  DEMOCRACY  IN  RELIGION    215 

and  social  classes  in  a  universal  brotherhood. 
Because  one  is  our  Father  which  is  in  heaven, 
because  we  are  all  his  offspring  and  share  in 
his  life,  we  are  all  brethren. 


ffitoettftbe 

CAMBRIDGE  .  MASSACHUSETTS 
U   .   S    .   A 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000757191     2 


